Dr. Zakir Naik yet again tries to answer one of the most commonly asked questions by non-Muslims (in this case Christian missionaries). This time he tries to defend Muhammad from the charge that he plagiarized information from the Bible (see here). We will see how well he does.

 

Before I go any further I would like to make it clear that I am not championing the cause of Christians here. At certain places while referring to biblical passages supposedly revealed by God, I would be using expressions such as “God says in the verse…etc”. This is similar to me saying “Allah says in the verse…” But in actual fact I deny Allah (Allah is the Arabic for the (al) – God (ilah)). I use the term Allah or God simply because that is how the supposed authors of the respective books are referred to, and not because I truly believe that either of them is God, in the true sense.      

Well on to the issue at hand, as usual Dr. Zakir quotes the question and goes on to answer it. I will quote Dr. Zakir and then follow it up with my answer.  

Dr. Zakir:

 

1.    QUR’AN PLAGIARIZED FROM THE BIBLE :

Question

Is it not true that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has copied the Qur’an from the Bible?

Answer

Many critics allege that Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) himself was not the author of the Qur’an but he learnt it and/or plagiarised (copied or adapted) it from other human sources or from previous scriptures or revelations.

1.    MUHUMMAD LEARNT THE QUR’AN FROM A ROMAN BLACKSMITH WHO WAS A CHRISTIAN

Some Pagans accused the Prophet of learning the Qur’an from a Roman Blacksmith, who was a Christian staying at the outskirts of Makkah. The Prophet very often used to go and watch him do his work. A revelation of the Qur’an was sufficient to dismiss this charge - the Qur’an says in Surah An-Nahl chapter 16 verse 103:

"We know indeed that they say, ‘It is a man that teaches him,’ The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear." 
                          [Al-Qur’an 16:103]

How could a person whose mother tongue was foreign and could hardly speak little but of poor broken Arabic be the source of the Qur’an which is pure, eloquent, fine Arabic? To believe that the blacksmith taught the Prophet the Qur’an is some what similar to believing that a Chinese immigrant to England, who did not know proper English, taught Shakespeare. 
 

Response:

Dr. Zakir Naik ends his response to the first accusation by stating “To believe that the blacksmith taught the Prophet the Qur’an is some what similar to believing that a Chinese immigrant to England, who did not know proper English, taught Shakespeare.” Here he draws a analogy between Muhammad’s Quran and Shakespeare’s acclaimed masterpieces, there by Dr. Zakir assumes that the Quran is a great masterpiece, that he is yet to prove.

In short Dr. Zakir Naik commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way.

Ibn Ishaq says this on the verse on page 180, Sirat Rasul Allah:

According to my information the apostle used often to sit at al-Marwa at the booth of a young Christian called Jabr, a slave of B. al-Hadrami and they used to say "The one who teaches Muhammad most of what he brings is Jabr the Christian, slave of the B. al-Hadrami."  Then God revealed in reference to their words "We well know that they say, "Only a mortal teaches him"."  The tongue of him at whom they hint is foreign, and this is a clear Arabic tongue.

Muhammad often used to sit with the Christian slave and converse with him, which means the slave knew Arabic well enough to converse often with Muhammad. Moreover he was a slave of an Arab which makes it important for him to learn Arabic.

Dr. Zakir Naik says that the verse from Quran is sufficient enough to dismiss the claim, but it’s easier said than done.

What the Quran says isn’t sufficient to deny that he was a source for Muhammad. All the Quran says is that the native language of Jabr is not Arabic. As we already noted Jabr knew Arabic well enough to converse with Muhammad often. May be it is not pure Arabic as the Quran claims, so what? It is not that Muhammad had to plagiarize Jabr word for word. All he needed to know was what the bible says. Muhammad can rephrase the information in a form that he wanted it to be. 

Then Dr. Zakir Naik goes to answer the claim that Waraqa being Muhammad’s source:

Dr. Zakir:

2.    MUHUMMAD (PBUH) LEARNT FROM WARAQA - THE RELATIVE OF KHADIJAH (RA)

Muhummad’s (pbuh) contacts with the Jewish and Christian Scholars were very limited. The most prominent Christian known to him was an old blind man called Waraqa ibn-Naufal who was a relative of the Prophet’s first wife Khadijah (r.a.). Although of Arab descent, he was a convert to Christianity and was very well versed with the New Testament. The Prophet only met him twice, first when Waraqa was worshipping at the Kaaba (before the Prophetic Mission) and he kissed the Prophet’s forehead affectionately; the second occasion was when the Prophet went to meet Waraqa after receiving the first revelation. Waraqa died three years later and the revelation continued for about 23 years. It is ridiculous to assume that Waraqa was the source of the contents of the Qur’an. 
 

Response:

I have not seen a single Islamic source that claims Muhammad only met Waraqa twice in his entire lifetime. It would be helping Dr. Naik’s cause, if he can produce such a source (which he hasn’t done). Only two of these incidents find its place in many Islamic traditions.  
 

Going by Dr. Zakir’s logic all we have to do is count the number of times a person is mentioned to have been with Muhammad and conclude that Muhammad met the person only these number of times.  
 

For example, count the number of times Aisha and Muhammad or Khadijah and Muhammad are mentioned together in the Islamic sources and conclude that they have only met these many times! Now how is this logic Dr. Zakir?   
 

Dr. Zakir is basically arguing from silence, if he wants to prove that Muhammad met Waraqa only twice in his entire life time his sources must state that explicitly, and not simply present the number of times the Islamic sources mention them together. Does Zakir expect the Islamic sources to cover each and every second of Muhammad’s life?  
 

Muhammad also had other sources to Waraqa. Her wife being a close relative of Waraqa, who seemed to have had a penchant for Christianity, would have surely spread the message of the bible to her. It comes as no surprise that Muhammad, who was in search of religious truth and who would often resign himself to seclusion in search of it, would have known this from his wife.     
 

Dr. Zakir Naik says this at the end of his answer: 
 

Waraqa died three years later and the revelation continued for about 23 years. It is ridiculous to assume that Waraqa was the source of the contents of the Qur’an. 
 

But what Dr. Zakir Naik fails to inform his readers is that, after the death of Waraqa the so called revelations suddenly began to stop, and this period of absence of any revelation lasted for about 3 years!  
 

The following is a long Hadith, I quote the relevant part here: 
 

….But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while…. [Al-Bukhari Volume 1, Book 1, Number3] 
 

Another long Hadith, I will quote the relevant part here: 
 
 

…..But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's Apostle in truth" whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain…. [Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111] 
 

And another long hadith, I will quote the relevant part here: 
 

…But a short while later Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was paused (stopped) for a while so that Allah's Apostle was very much grieved…[Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478] 
 

Ibn Kathir in "The Life of the Prophet Muhammad", volume 1, from pages 278, through 301, (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), translated by Trevor Le Gassick, has this to say: 
 

Not long thereafter Waraqa dies, and the revelation waned for a period, so that the Messenger of God was so depressed - as we have been told - that he would frequently feel like throwing himself down from the summits of high mountains. Whenever he reached the top of a mountain, to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear and say, "O Muhammad, you are in truth the Messenger of God! This would relieve his distress and he would return down. And if the inspiration was again long incoming, he would feel and do the same. [Pages 279, 280] 
 

And on another page: 
 

Some authorities state that the intermission lasted for approximately two years, or two years and a half. [Ibid. Page 300] 
 

Islamic scholar (not muslim) Sir William Muir says in his "The Life of Muhammad", p. 51: 
 

The period succeeding the revelation of the 96^th Sura, during which inspiration was suspended, and Mohammad in despondency contemplated suicide, is generally represented as of longer duration than in the above statement. The interval [which is called the fetra] is variously held to have lasted from six months to three years.  
 

Dr. Zakir Naik had said: 
 

Waraqa died three years later and the revelation continued for about 23 years. It is ridiculous to assume that Waraqa was the source of the contents of the Qur’an. 
 

Firstly, through the marriage of Khadijah, Muhammad would have known Waraqa for 15 yrs (approx.) before his prophetic mission.  
 

And in fact only little of the Quran talks about the contents actually found in the Bible, that too with many distortions. And 15 yrs was enough time for Muhammad to learn the few things he knew about Christianity.    
 

And I wonder is it still ridiculous to assume Waraqa could have been a source when, Muhammad was void any revelation (for some 6 months - 3 yrs) soon after the death of Waraqa? 
 

Dr. Zakir:

3.    PROPHET’S RELIGIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS

It is true that the Prophet did have religious discussions with the Jews and Christians but they took place in Madinah more than 13 years after the revelation of the Qur’an had started. The allegation that these Jews and Christians were the source is perverse, since in these discussions Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was performing the roles of a teacher and of a preacher while inviting them to embrace Islam and pointing out that they had deviated from their true teachings of Monotheism. Several of these Jews and Christians later embraced Islam. 
 
 

Response:

Dr. Zakir Naik says “Several of these Jews and Christians later embraced Islam.” but how Dr. Zakir? Why don’t you tell that? 
 

Muhammad started to preach the Quran to the Jews and Christians in and around Medina, but they found him to be an imposter and rejected his claim of prophethood and there were very few takers.  
 

Alarmed, Muhammad threatened the Jews to either accept him as their prophet or perish. Muhammad had the Jews expelled and killed about 800 Jews at one instance. He held their women and children as slaves.  
 

Yet many still preferred to die rather than accepting a charlatan to be their prophet and a few who feared Muhammad’s sword, were forced into Islam. Since going through the specifics are literally out of scope for this article, I would request the readers to visit the following links. [1], [2], [3], [4]  
 

On the issue of him being a teacher and a preacher to Jews and Christians, it was something Muhammad claimed to be. But merely claiming to be their teacher proves nothing. Muhammad many a times was unaware of what the Jewish scriptures was conveying, and had to ask them to be aware of it. 
 

This is a description of the Prophet Muhammad in the Books of the Prophets. They delivered the good news of his advent to their nations and commanded them to follow him. His descriptions were still apparent in their Books, as the rabbis and priests well know. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sakhr Al-‘Uqayli said that a bedouin man said to him, "I brought a milk-producing camel to Al-Madinah during the life time of Allah's Messenger. After I sold it, I said to myself, ‘I will meet that man (Muhammad) and hear from him.’ So I passed by him while he was walking between Abu Bakr and 'Umar, and I followed them until they went by a Jewish man, who was reading from an open copy of the Tawrah. He was mourning a son of his who was dying and who was one of the most handsome boys. The Messenger of Allah asked him (the father), <I ask you by He Who has sent down the Tawrah, do you not find the description of me and my advent in your Book?>

 
He nodded his head in the negative. His son said, ‘Rather, yes, by He Who has sent down the Tawrah! We find the description of you and your advent in our Book. I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah.’ The Prophet said (to the Companions),  
<Stop the Jew (the father) from (taking care of) your brother (in Islam).> [Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Sura 7:157] 
 

Muhammad was asking the Jew if there was a description of him in the Torah, yet as a teacher he couldn’t point out where he was described.  
 

Here is another instance that demonstrates Muhammad’s ignorance what the Jewish scriptures told: 
 

Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:  
A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." ‘Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah’s Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah’s Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn ‘Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 809]

Narrated Abdullah bin Umar:  
The Jews came to Allah’s Apostle and mentioned to him that a man and a lady among them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah’s Apostle said to them, "What do you find in the Torah regarding the Rajam?" They replied, "We only disgrace and flog them with stripes." ‘Abdullah bin Salam said to them, "You have told a lie the penalty of Rajam is in the Torah." They brought the Torah and opened it. One of them put his hand over the verse of the Rajam and read what was before and after it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, "Lift up your hand." Where he lifted it there appeared the verse of the Rajam. So they said, "O Muhammad! He has said the truth, the verse of the Rajam is in it (Torah)." Then Allah’s Apostle ordered that the two persons (guilty of illegal sexual intercourse) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned, and I saw the man bending over the woman so as to protect her from the stones. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 825]

Muhammad seems to have been ignorant of what the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse was (according to the Torah) and asked the Jews about it. He needed a third person (another Jew), to point out that they were hiding the truth.

Yet again, Muhammad wasn’t able to identify where such a verse was present and whether the Jews were lying to him. So much for Muhammad being a teacher and preacher to the Jews and Christians!

At another instance Muhammad didn’t know whether Jews were preaching truth or falsehood to the muslims.

Narrated Abu Huraira: 
The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that Allah's Apostle said, "Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say:-- We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us." (2.136) [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 12]

Muhammad could have told the muslims what to believe and what not to, rather Muhammad urges them not to believe or (not to) disbelieve in them, a reflection of Muhammad dilemma.

Moreover, since the Jews preached their scriptures to muslims, Muhammad could have always known what the Jews had preached them and then used it in his own scripture.

What is more amusing is that we find Allah in the Quran asking Muhammad to consult the people of the scripture, if Muhammad is in doubt as to what has been revealed.

And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers. And be not thou of those who deny the revelations of Allah, for then wert thou of the losers. S. 10:94-95 Pickthall

How about a teacher asking his disciples to teach him and clear his doubts? It’s rather unbecoming for a teacher.

Zakir also claims that these discussions took place after 13 yrs of Muhammad starting to preach his religion, but we have already seen Muhammad had his sources in Mecca too, like the Christian slave, Waraqa.

Furthermore, Dr. Zakir forgets the possibility that Muhammad could have learnt about the bible far before his claim to prophethood (a possibility already noted).

Dr. Zakir:

4.    THE PROPHET LEARNT THE QUR’AN FROM THOSE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS THAT HE MET OUTSIDE ARABIA

All historical records available show that Muhummad (pbuh) had made only three trips outside Makkah before his Prophethood:

1. At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Madinah.
2. Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria.
3. At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria.

It is highly imaginary to assume that the Qur’an resulted from the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the above three trips.

Response:

Dr. Naik merely presents his opinion that it is highly improbable that Muhammad’s knowledge of Bible could have been the result of these occasional chats, but why? Zakir fails to inform us. 
 

Being generous one can concede that during the first two trips Muhammad was too small to have learned even the fundamentals of Christianity. 
 

But during his third trip, Muhammad was well into his adulthood and would have been able to learn about Christianity.  
 

Dr. Zakir Naik, throughout his article has been arguing under the false assumption that Muhammad should have had only one source to acquire knowledge of the bible. 
 

Let’s summarize some of his points and see how he assumes this. 
 

1. Dr. Naik asks how Waraqa could have been the source when he died 3 years after Muhammad’s supposed claim to prophethood, when the revelation continued for 23 yrs from his death.

 
 

2. Zakir asks how the Jews and Christians of Medina could have been a source when Muhammad was preaching already preaching the Quran for 13 yrs.

 
 

3. Now he says it is highly imaginary to assume that the Qur’an resulted from  

the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the   above three trips. 
 
 

All of these assumes that these where the only sources for Muhammad, that too only one among this can be true, it never dawns on him that Muhammad could have had more than one source! 
 

Next Dr. Naik goes on to present certain logical grounds which according to him will prove Muhammad couldn’t have learned from the Jews or Christians. 
 

I will handle his logical premises (i) and (iii) together as they are both almost the same and the others separately. 
 

Dr. Zakir:

5.    LOGICAL GROUNDS TO PROVE THAT THE PROPHET DID NOT LEARN THE QUR’AN FROM JEWS OR CHRISTIANS

1. The day-to-day life of the Prophet was an open book for all to see. In fact a revelation came asking people to give the Prophet (pbuh) privacy in his own home. If the Prophet had been meeting people who told him what to say as a revelation from God, this would not have been hidden for very long.

iii. The enemies of the Prophet kept a close watch on him in order to find proof for their claim that he was a liar - they could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret rendezvous with particular Jews and Christians.

Response:

Dr. Naik sure seems to be forgetful, doesn’t he? 
 

He talks as if the Meccans or other non believers failed to identify any secret teacher (as Zakir would put it) that Muhammad had. Dr. Zakir Naik need not go far and search the Sunnah of his prophet to find such instance(s) neither does he need to look into the Sirat nor the Quran. All he needs to do is look to the beginning of his so called answer to the query. He writes:

1. MUHUMMAD LEARNT THE QUR’AN FROM A ROMAN BLACKSMITH WHO WAS A CHRISTIAN

Some Pagans accused the Prophet of learning the Qur’an from a Roman Blacksmith, who was a Christian staying at the outskirts of Makkah. The Prophet very often used to go and watch him do his work.

      ……. "We know indeed that they say, ‘It is a man that teaches him,’ The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear." 
                          [Al-Qur’an 16:103]…..

Dr. Naik himself notes that Pagans accused Muhammad of learning the Quran from a Christian, and he quotes the relevant Quranic verse which was intended as an answer to this accusation. Yet within a few passages down the line Dr. Zakir seems to have forgotten all these. Contradicting his own words he now says that:  
 

…If the Prophet had been meeting people who told him what to say as a revelation from God, this would not have been hidden for very long.

….They could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret rendezvous with particular Jews and Christians.

Now Dr. Naik may say that the accusation was false as he had mentioned already. But even assuming the accusation was false (which wasn’t a strong argument as seen) that still doesn’t solve the problem for Dr. Zakir Naik. Note what Dr. Zakir says “They could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had…” Dr. Zakir’s so called logical argument doesn’t require the charge to be true but only asks for such an instance of Muhammad being charged!

 

What this says is Muhammad being in contact with Christians or Jews leaves us with the possibility of Muhammad gaining knowledge about the Bible. Hence, the Pagans or other non believers, being able to point out such instances is detrimental for Muhammad’s cause. Dr. Zakir realizes it hence his argument that such an incident never occurred.  
 

Moreover, the use of the term “Secret” is a misnomer. There was nothing secret about his sources. The meccans knew them and pointed them out, contrary to Dr. Zakir’s claim. He continues: 
 

Dr. Zakir:

2. The extremely prominent Quraish nobles who followed the Prophet and accepted Islam were wise and intelligent men who would have easily noticed anything suspicious about the way in which the Prophet brought the revelations to them - more so since the Prophetic mission lasted 23 years.

 
 

4. It is inconceivable that any human author of the Qur’an would have accepted a situation in which he received no credit whatsoever for originating the Qur’an.

Thus, historically and logically it cannot be established that there was a human source for the Qur’an.

Response:

His logical ground (iv) is a mere fallacy of appeal to authority, just because the few people who followed him found him to be true it doesn’t mean he was true. 
 

Many Charlatans have claimed to be prophets and they too have had followers who found the charlatans to be true, so does it also prove that they are true prophets? If no, why would it prove so in this case? 
 

Counter Question 
 

Turning the tables around on Zakir, many of the Quraysh nobles (more than those who accepted him) rejected Muhammad’s claim to prophethood, which includes his own Uncle Abu Talib who protected Muhammad till his death. Majority of these nobles also were part in accusing Muhammad of plagiarizing the Quran, so doesn’t it serve as a proof that Muhammad indeed plagiarized the Quran? 
 

His fifth logical premise again fallaciously assumes that Muhammad had only one source. Rather Muhammad had many sources and he would have learnt about the contents of the bible through many years by the interacting with the Christians, and Jews he met. 
 

Zakir asks for instances where Muhammad’s followers/enemies found out his source. There was an instance, when Muhammad accepted one of his scribes suggestion on improving Quran, which made the scribe doubt him and apostate! 
 

“'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to him" refers to `Abdallah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write for God's messenger. The verse (23:12) that says, "We created man of an extraction of clay" was revealed, and when Muhammad reached the part that says, "... thereafter We produced him as another creature (23:14), `Abdallah said, "So blessed be God the fairest of creators!" in amazement at the details of man's creation. The prophet said, "Write it down; for thus it has been revealed." `Abdallah doubted and said, "If Muhammad is truthful then I receive the revelation as much as he does, and if he is a liar, what I said is a good as what he said." [Tafsir Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Ta'wil by `Abdallah Ibn `Umar al-Baidawi, on S 6:93.] 
 

So, one of Muhammad’s teachers did claim credit and left Islam.  
 

Dr. Zakir:

6.    MUHUMMAD (PBUH) WAS AN ILLITERATE

The theory that Muhummad (pbuh) authored the Qur’an or copied from other sources can be disproved by the single historical fact that he was illiterate.

Allah testifies Himself in the Qur’an 
In Surah Al-Ankabut chapter no.29 verse 48

"And thou was not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: in that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted." 
[Al-Qur’an 29:48]

Allah (swt) knew that many would doubt the authenticity of the Qur’an and would ascribe it to Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). Therefore Allah in His Divine Wisdom chose the last and final Messenger to be an ‘Ummi’, i.e. unlettered, so that the talkers of vanity would not then have the slightest justification to doubt the Prophet. The accusation of his enemies that he had copied the Qur’an from other sources and rehashed it all in a beautiful language might have carried some weight, but even this flimsy pretence has been deprived to the unbeliever and the cynic.

Allah reconfirms in the Qur’an in Surah Al A’raf chapter 7 verse 157:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) in the Law and the Gospel"

The prophecy of coming of the unlettered Prophet (pbuh) is also mentioned in the Bible in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12.

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned." 
[Isaiah 29:12]

The Qur’an testifies in no less than four different places that the Prophet (pbuh) was illiterate. It is also mentioned in Surah A’raf chapter 7 verse 158 and in Surah Al-Jumu’a chapter 62 verse 2.

Response:

Whether Muhammad was illiterate is indeed debatable. We have evidence that Muhammad was literate in some point of his life. I have already handled this issue and the verses of the quran that seem to claim Muhammad was illiterate here. Certain sections of Muslims themselves claim that Muhammad wasn’t illiterate [1], [2]. 
 

The gist of the claim put forward by these muslims is that since the first revelation to Muhammad was "READ" [al-`Alaq 96:1-4] and the second was the "PEN" [al-Qalam 68:1], it is inconceivable that he should tell his followers to learn to read, but he himself continued in illiteracy. A valid point, I would say. Dr. Zakir Naik should first be able to convince his fellow muslims that Muhammad was illiterate before trying to prove the same to non believers. 
 

Dr. Zakir Naik is attacking a straw man here, and then goes on to knock the straw man down and bluster about his victory. I wouldn’t have said this if it was not for this claim of Dr. Zakir Naik:

The theory that Muhummad (pbuh) authored the Qur’an or copied from other sources can be disproved by the single historical fact that he was illiterate.

...... but even this flimsy pretence has been deprived to the unbeliever and the cynic…

Dr. Zakir Naik says this single fact (which is debatable) is enough to disprove the claims Muhammad plagiarized the Bible, which isn’t the case.  
 

Proving Muhammad was an illiterate doesn’t show that Muhammad couldn’t have plagiarized the Bible. It isn’t necessary for Muhammad to have read the bible in order to borrow stories from the Bible. All Muhammad needed was to know what the Bible says, it doesn’t necessitate that he must have read the bible to do so. All he needed was to hear what the bible said, which would have been readily available from the Christians he met, and as stories doing rounds.  
 
 

Is Isaiah 29:12 foretelling the coming of Muhammad? 
 

It will be interesting to test the validity of Dr. Naik’s claim of Muhammad being the illiterate person in Isaiah 29:12. Though it is not relevant to this article as such, I still decided to include this because it shows how desperate muslims will get to prove Muhammad was foretold. 
 

Isaiah 29 is a chapter in which punishment for Israel is being announced.  
 

And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee. [Isa 29:3 KJVA]   
 

And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. [Isa 29:4 KJVA]   
 

Moreover the multitude of thy strangers shall be like small dust, and the multitude of the terrible ones shall be as chaff that passeth away: yea, it shall be at an instant suddenly. [Isa 29:5 KJVA]   
 

Isa 29 says God had endowed them with prophets who brought the messages from God, and regarding the effects of not accepting the message. But they didn’t heed to it and were amazingly stupid. 
 

Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. [Isa 29:9 KJVA]   
 

Isa 29:10 says that the prophets and seers themselves will be put to sleep and no longer receive revelation from the LORD. 
 

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. [Isa 29:10 KJVA]   
 

As a punishment God has taken away the ability to understand the scripture. This is being said in the next two verses: 
 

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:  [Isa 29:11 KJVA] 
 

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.  [Isa 29:12 KJVA] 
 
 

Isa 29:11-12, states that irrespective of a person being learned or not, when the scripture is brought to them they don’t have the ability to understand it. The verse doesn’t foretell a future prophet rather is describing the punishment for the people of Israel who for long disobeyed God. Dr. Zakir Naik completely takes this verse out of context and injects his own delusion into it. 
 

What is interesting is the next verse, Isa 29:13: 
 

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:  [Isa 29:13 KJVA] 
 

The verse says the people described in Isa 29:11-12 are the ones whose heart is far from God, with worship that is not according to God's will but according to what men have invented and that their inability to read/understand is part of God's punishment. Does Dr. Zakir still want to claim Isa 29:12 is a description of Muhammad? Go on claim so, Doctor. Certainly, some muslims seem to be so desperate that they will read Muhammad everywhere in the Bible.  
 

Dr. Zakir:

7.    ARABIC VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS NOT PRESENT

The Arabic version of the Bible was not present at the time of Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). The earliest Arabic version of the Old Testament is that of R. Saadias Gaon of 900 C.E. - more than 250 years after the death of our beloved Prophet. The oldest Arabic version of the new Testament was published by Erpenius in 1616 C.E. - about a thousand years after the demise of our Prophet.

Response:

This claim by Dr. Zakir is rather surprising given the fact that Islamic sources themselves attest for the presence of Arabic Gospels. We know from Islamic sources Bible had been translated into Arabic during the time of Muhammad, by his relative Waraqa! 
 

Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic. Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly." [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605]

"…Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-lslamic Period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight..." [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478]

Also see Sahih al-Bukhari , Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111 
 

His next two sections deal with how mere similarity between two books doesn’t mean one is copied from the other and how muslims believe in all the scriptures supposedly sent down by Allah. Due to the length I have not posted his entire argument, those who want to read his arguments can visit this link. 
 

Dr. Zakir:

8.    SIMILARITIES IN THE QUR’AN AND THE BIBLE DUE TO COMMON SOURCE

9.    MUSLIMS BELIEVE IN THE TAURAH, ZABOOR, INJEEL AND QUR’AN

Response:

I agree similarities alone can’t mean borrowing but, what if the sources were known to be well known myths? The material Muhammad borrowed was not only from the bible but also from the Arabic Infancy Gospel, the Gospel of Pseudo Matthew, etc. these were well known myths. 
 

The Quran also borrows stories from the Mishnah, which were well known to be the work of men, they were not considered to be inspired but rather well known work of men. The NT Infancy Gospels were never considered to be inspired or revealed either.  They were just stories (fables) that people made up to fill in details missing in Mary's, Jesus', Joseph's, etc. lives.   
 

The Quran contains stories such as Jesus talking from the cradle, dates dropping from the top of the tree to satisfy Mary’s hunger, etc. these are well known tales/fables rather than being the contents bible.  
 

Time permitting, I would latter add an appendix on the verses of the Quran which were possibly borrowed from these well known fables by Muhammad.  
 

To drive my point across, here is an example. If a person writes an examination and he reproduces what is present in the text books, no one will say he indulged in malpractice just because the text book and his answers are similar. But what if his answers are similar to another person’s “wrong answers”? It would certainly mean either of the two had been involved in malpractice. 
 

The same applies here, instead of just concurring with the Bible; Muhammad’s Quran tells us some of the well known fables. What does this mean? Muhammad obviously borrowed these tales.   
 

This didn’t escape eyes of the unbelievers, as the Quran itself testifies: 
 

And they say: The stories of the ancients-- he has got them written-- so these are read out to him morning and evening. S. 25: 5.  Shakir