In our final examination of Ahmed Deedat’s claims regarding Muhammad in the Bible, we encounter perhaps his most rhetorically clever—yet contextually disastrous—argument. Deedat points to Isaiah 29:12, where a book is given to “him that is not learned” who says, “I am not learned,” and identifies this figure as Muhammad receiving the Qur’an in the Cave of Hira.
The argument possesses a surface elegance: Muhammad’s illiteracy (Ummi) is central to Islamic apologetics, and the moment when Gabriel commanded “Read!” (Iqra) and Muhammad replied “I cannot read” appears to parallel Isaiah’s description perfectly. But as we shall see, this apparent connection collapses catastrophically once we read the surrounding verses. Far from prophesying the inauguration of Islam’s greatest prophet, Isaiah 29 describes a divine judgment of spiritual blindness—and to identify Muhammad with the “unlearned” man is to place him under a curse.
The Central Question
Does Isaiah 29:12 prophesy Muhammad’s reception of the Qur’an, or does context reveal an entirely different meaning?
This question illustrates a fundamental principle of biblical interpretation: isolated verses can be made to say almost anything. Only when we read texts in their immediate and broader context do we discover their actual meaning. Deedat’s argument depends entirely on not reading the surrounding verses.
Our Interpretive Commitments
We approach this text believing that Scripture has a determinate meaning—what the original author intended and what the original audience would have understood. Context is not optional; it is essential. We also believe that God does not contradict Himself: a passage describing divine judgment cannot simultaneously be a prophecy of divine blessing without explicit indication in the text. These convictions guide our reading.
Deedat’s Argument Stated Fairly
Deedat’s case runs as follows:
Isaiah 29:12 states: “And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.”
According to Islamic tradition, the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad in the Cave of Hira around 610 AD and commanded him to “Read!” (Iqra). Muhammad, being illiterate, responded: “I am not a reader” or “I cannot read” (Ma ana bi-qari). After Gabriel repeated the command and embraced Muhammad forcefully, the first verses of the Qur’an (Surah 96:1-5) were revealed.
Deedat argues that the parallel is unmistakable: a book delivered to an unlettered man who initially protests his inability to read. He presents Muhammad’s illiteracy not as a limitation but as a credential—proof that the Qur’an could not have been forged by human invention and evidence that Isaiah foresaw this exact moment seven centuries before Christ.
The argument has emotional resonance for Muslims, as Muhammad’s Ummi (unlettered) status is cherished as evidence of the Qur’an’s miraculous origin. Deedat skillfully connects this treasured belief to an Old Testament text, suggesting biblical endorsement.
Why This Argument Initially Persuades
We should acknowledge why this claim carries weight before examining why it fails.
First, the verbal parallel is striking. The phrase “I am not learned” does correspond superficially to Muhammad’s reported response in the Cave. Isolated from context, the connection seems plausible.
Second, the argument appeals to Islamic theological categories. Muslims already believe Muhammad’s illiteracy was divinely significant. Finding an apparent biblical prediction of this illiteracy validates existing convictions.
Third, the argument is often presented to audiences unfamiliar with Isaiah. Few Christians have memorized Isaiah 29, and fewer still have studied its literary structure. Deedat exploits this unfamiliarity by quoting only the portion that serves his purpose.
The Context Deedat Omits
Everything changes when we read what comes before and after verse 12. The passage is not a prophecy of blessing but a pronouncement of judgment.
The Spirit of Deep Sleep (Verses 9-10)
Two verses before Deedat’s proof text, the prophet declares:
“Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered” (Isaiah 29:9-10).
This is devastating to Deedat’s interpretation. The passage describes a divine judgment in which God Himself has “poured out” a “spirit of deep sleep” upon the people. He has “closed their eyes” and “covered” the prophets and seers. This is not blessing but curse—not illumination but blindness.
The “unlearned” man in verse 12 exists within this context of judgment. His inability to read the book is not the preamble to revelation; it is the result of divine punishment. God has deliberately blinded the people so that His word remains inaccessible to them.
The Parable of Two Excuses (Verses 11-12)
The full passage presents a literary parallel—two men, two excuses, one result:
“And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned” (Isaiah 29:11-12).
The structure is deliberate. The book is offered to a learned man who refuses because “it is sealed.” The same book is offered to an unlearned man who refuses because “I am not learned.” The point is that neither man reads the book. Whether due to external obstacles (the seal) or internal limitation (illiteracy), the result is identical: the vision remains closed.
Deedat isolates verse 12 and treats it as a specific historical prediction while ignoring verse 11 entirely. But the text presents them as parallel illustrations of the same spiritual condition. Both men represent a people from whom God’s word has been hidden. To literalize verse 12 as a prophecy of Muhammad while treating verse 11 as mere metaphor is arbitrary and methodologically indefensible.
The Reason for Blindness (Verse 13)
The verse immediately following Deedat’s proof text explains why this blindness has come:
“Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men” (Isaiah 29:13).
The inability to read the book (verse 12) is the direct consequence of the people’s hypocrisy (verse 13). They honor God with their lips while their hearts are far from Him. Their worship is mere external form, “taught by the precept of men” rather than flowing from genuine devotion.
This creates an insurmountable problem for Deedat. If we insist that verse 12 specifically prophesies Muhammad, then contextual integrity requires that verse 13 describes his spiritual condition. This would mean identifying Muhammad as a hypocrite—one who honors God verbally while his heart is “far from Him.” No Muslim would accept this conclusion, yet it follows necessarily from Deedat’s interpretive method applied consistently.
The Theological Contradiction
Deedat’s argument faces a fundamental theological problem that cannot be resolved by clever exegesis.
In Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s illiteracy is viewed positively. It is a divine credential, proof that the Qur’an could not be human forgery. The revelation to Muhammad was an opening—the beginning of light and guidance for humanity.
In Isaiah 29, the inability to read is viewed negatively. It is a symptom of divine judgment, proof that God has closed the eyes of His people. The scene depicts a closing—the sealing of vision as punishment for spiritual rebellion.
These are not merely different perspectives on illiteracy; they are mutually exclusive theological categories. Isaiah describes a tragedy: the book remains sealed and unread. Deedat claims it predicts a triumph: the book is opened and recited. The passage depicts divine punishment; Deedat presents it as divine election. The two interpretations cannot coexist.
If Muhammad is the “unlearned” man of Isaiah 29:12, then Muhammad was under the “spirit of deep sleep” that God poured out in judgment. His eyes were among those God “closed.” His inability to read was not a credential but a curse. This is not what Deedat intends to prove.
The Method of Contextual Amputation
Deedat’s handling of Isaiah 29:12 illustrates a interpretive technique that scholars call “contextual amputation”—the surgical removal of a verse from its surrounding material to produce a meaning the original text does not support.
This method can make almost any text say almost anything. By isolating phrases, one can construct apparent prophecies of events that the author never intended to predict. The technique is not honest interpretation; it is proof-texting in service of a predetermined conclusion.
The antidote to contextual amputation is simply reading more. Any interpretation that cannot survive contact with the surrounding verses should be abandoned. Deedat’s interpretation of Isaiah 29:12 cannot survive contact with verses 9-11 or verse 13. It depends entirely on the audience not checking the context.
What Isaiah 29 Actually Addresses
When we read Isaiah 29 as a unified oracle, its meaning becomes clear.
The chapter is addressed to “Ariel”—a poetic name for Jerusalem (verse 1). God announces that He will bring distress upon the city, besieging it and humbling it (verses 2-4). Yet He will also turn suddenly against Jerusalem’s enemies, scattering them like chaff (verses 5-8).
Verses 9-14 then explain the spiritual condition of Jerusalem’s inhabitants. They are blind—not because they lack intelligence, but because God has judicially closed their eyes as punishment for their hypocrisy. The learned cannot read God’s word because it appears “sealed”; the unlearned cannot read it because they lack the capacity. Neither excuse is acceptable, but both reveal the same spiritual deadness.
The remedy comes in verses 17-24: a future time when “the deaf shall hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity.” This is the restoration of spiritual sight to those from whom it was removed—not the inauguration of a new religion through a new prophet, but the reversal of the judgment described in verses 9-12.
Jesus explicitly applied verse 13 to the Pharisees of His day (Matthew 15:7-9, Mark 7:6-7), demonstrating that the early church understood this passage as describing religious hypocrisy that continued into the first century—not as a prophecy of a seventh-century Arabian prophet.
Addressing Anticipated Objections
“But the parallel with Muhammad’s experience is too precise to be coincidental.”
The parallel is verbal only, not theological. Many historical figures have been illiterate and have been asked to read. The specific verbal similarity between “I am not learned” and “I cannot read” does not establish prophetic fulfillment when the context of Isaiah describes judgment and the context of Muhammad’s experience (in Islamic telling) describes blessing. Verbal similarity without theological continuity proves nothing.
“Perhaps the judgment context applied to the Jews, but verse 12 specifically prophesies Muhammad.”
This approach treats the text as if verse 12 can be extracted from its literary unit and given independent meaning. But verses 11 and 12 are grammatically and thematically linked—they form a single illustration of the “sealed” condition described in verse 10. One cannot accept verse 12 as literal prophecy while treating verse 11 as mere illustration. And if both are literal prophecy, then the “learned” man of verse 11 must also be identified historically—which Deedat does not attempt because it would expose the arbitrary nature of his method.
“Doesn’t the Qur’an’s existence prove that the book was eventually ‘opened’?”
This begs the question. The issue is whether Isaiah 29:12 prophesies the Qur’an. To argue that the Qur’an’s existence proves the prophecy assumes what must be demonstrated. Moreover, the “opening” in Isaiah 29 comes through God’s restoration of spiritual sight to the deaf and blind (verses 18-19)—not through a new scripture delivered six centuries later in Arabia.
The Broader Pattern
This final claim exhibits the same methodology we have observed throughout Deedat’s arguments:
- The “Muhammadim” claim isolated a single Hebrew word from Song of Solomon without regard to genre or context.
- The Paraclete claim imposed Islamic theological categories onto Johannine vocabulary without regard to the Spirit’s attributes.
- The “Guiding Into All Truth” claim redefined biblical “truth” as societal legislation without regard to Christological context.
- The “Prophet Like Moses” claim defined prophetic “likeness” by biological categories without regard to Scripture’s own criteria.
In each case, the argument depends on readers not examining the context. In each case, the context decisively refutes the claim.
Isaiah 29:12 is the clearest example of this pattern because the contextual refutation is so immediate and so devastating. One need only read two verses earlier and one verse later to discover that Deedat has identified Muhammad with a figure under divine judgment for hypocrisy.
The Gospel in the Judgment
Isaiah 29 is not merely a passage about ancient Israel’s spiritual blindness. It diagnoses a condition that affects all humanity apart from divine grace.
We all honor God with our lips while our hearts wander. We all possess “sealed” books that we cannot read—truth that remains inaccessible because our eyes are darkened by sin. The educated make excuses about complexity; the uneducated make excuses about incapacity. The result is the same: we remain estranged from God’s revelation.
The hope Isaiah offers is not a new prophet bringing new legislation. The hope is divine intervention that opens blind eyes and unstops deaf ears (Isaiah 29:18). The New Testament identifies this intervention as the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit—the very Spirit whom Jesus promised would “guide you into all truth” by illuminating what was previously sealed.
This is the tragedy of Deedat’s misreading: he takes a passage about the human need for divine illumination and turns it into an argument against the only One who provides that illumination. He claims the “sealed book” for Muhammad while ignoring the promise of opened eyes through Israel’s Messiah.
Conclusion
Ahmed Deedat’s final claim—that Isaiah 29:12 prophesies Muhammad as the “unlettered prophet”—collapses completely under contextual examination.
The passage is not a prophecy of blessing but a pronouncement of judgment. The “spirit of deep sleep” in verse 10 explains why the unlearned man cannot read in verse 12. The hypocrisy of verse 13 provides the reason for the blindness. To identify Muhammad with this figure is to place him under a divine curse, not to honor him with prophetic fulfillment.
Throughout this series, we have examined five claims that Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible: Song of Solomon’s “Muhammadim,” John’s Paraclete, the “Spirit of Truth” guiding into practical solutions, Deuteronomy’s “Prophet like Moses,” and Isaiah’s “unlettered” man. Each claim has failed when subjected to contextual and exegetical scrutiny. Each depends on isolating phrases from their literary and theological context.
The Bible does speak of a coming one—but He is described as the Messiah, the Son of David, the Suffering Servant, the Son of Man, the Prophet, Priest, and King. The New Testament writers, steeped in these Scriptures, unanimously identified Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfillment of these prophecies. Their testimony, written within decades of His earthly ministry, carries far more weight than claims constructed six centuries later by extracting phrases from their contexts.
An Invitation
If you have followed Ahmed Deedat’s arguments believing they establish Muhammad in the Bible, we invite you to test them for yourself. Do not take our word for it—read the passages in context. Examine Song of Solomon 5. Study John 14-16. Work through Deuteronomy 17-18. Read all of Isaiah 29.
Ask whether the interpretations survive contact with the surrounding verses. Ask whether the methodology—isolating phrases from context—would be acceptable if applied to the Qur’an. Ask whether verbal similarities constitute prophetic fulfillment when the theological contexts diverge completely.
And as you examine these questions, consider the One to whom these Scriptures actually point. Jesus did not merely claim to fulfill prophecy; He offered Himself as the answer to humanity’s deepest need—forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God. That offer remains open.
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18).