Ali Ataie – Ramadan & Revelation The Message of the Qur’an
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
My name is Ali Athai, associate professor and
dean of undergraduate studies here at Zaytuna College
in beautiful Berkeley, California.
For this 4th session of this series entitled
Ramadan in Revelation,
I want to explore the 4th and final
major keytab or scripture according to Islamic tradition,
the Quran of our master, Muhammad, sallallahu alaihi
sallam.
Unlike what we saw with the Torah, Psalms,
and gospel, there is a general consensus among
historians and textual critics that the Quran's human
source at least was the prophet Mohammed of
Arabia.
Whether he was a prophet or not is
a different discussion.
While Moses never knew the Pentateuch in its
final form, and David never knew the book
of Psalms in its final form, and Jesus
never saw the letters of Paul nor gospels
of the New Testament, everyone except for a
few radical revisionists
maintained that the ayat of the Quran,
all of them that we recite today, first
thundered from the lips of our master, Muhammad
sallallahu alaihi salam. This is without question.
Both the source and the words of the
Quran are mutawatr,
multiply attested through independent chains of transmission. The
entire Quran is attested in 1st century Hijri
manuscripts
several times over. The occasional variations in the
companion codices
and codified reading traditions
can be easily accounted for by appealing to
the ancient and widely known prophetic tradition
of the 7 Ahruf.
The Muslim narrative of the Quran standardization
under the codex committee of Earthman
has been confirmed in its major components
by the most eminent textual critics of the
west.
It is certainly we who have revealed the
reminder
and it's certainly we who will preserve it.
This is not some empty claim. This is
demonstrably true. In the next few minutes of
this session, I want to mention a few
things about the Quran that I think any
educated reader would find interesting and thought provoking.
For me, personally, these things are evidence of
the Quran's divine origin. And of course, the
Quran demonstrates its supernatural provenance
from multiple standpoints. In other words, we can
analyze the Quran through the lenses of various
disciplines
and experience its supernatural aspect.
First of all, it is indeed interesting that
the Quran predicts in both Meccan and Madin
Ansuar
that it will be and remain forever the
gold standard of Arabic literature. It predicts that
it will be a sui generis Arabic text
and one of a kind and totally unique
and inimitable masterpiece.
In other words, an insuperable text and unsurpassable
text.
And when we consider eloquence, style, and raw
impact upon humanity,
nothing is even remotely close to the Quran
in the Arabic language or in any language,
arguably.
The first two books ever written in Arabic
are the Quran and the Muwata of Imam
Malik ibn Anas.
The Quran and Sunnah, This is the foundation
of everything.
The sacred narratives described in the Quran, such
as the story of the flood at the
time of Nuh alaihi salam,
the story of Joseph or Yusuf alaihi salam,
and the story of the Exodus from Egypt,
the Hijra of Musa alaihi salam with Bani
Israel.
It's interesting that the Quranic versions of these
narratives
make much more historical sense than their biblical
counterparts,
And I mean historical in the modern sense
of the word. Why is this important?
This is important because one of the major
critiques of the Bible by modern historians
is the historical implausibility of the biblical narratives.
These stories simply do not hold up well
to modern historical scrutiny.
Their inability to reconcile between reason and their
revelation
has caused many folks who believe in the
bible to experience
major faith crises.
They seek proofs for their faith, istidlaal,
and hope to avoid taqleed or blind conformance.
But how do modern scientific historians
establish history?
Well, it's all a game of plausibility.
Plausibility is everything.
Modern historians determine what happened in the past
by asking a very simple question.
In light of the evidence, what most probably
happened? This is basically how modern history is
done. What most probably happened?
Of course, miracles are historically implausible,
but modern historians recognize that miracles by definition
are the least plausible occurrences.
That's why they're called miracles.
So historians do not necessarily deny miracles, they
simply do not consider them in their method.
Their paradigm is strictly naturalistic.
So miracles are considered non historical, meaning they
are not considered in the modern secular method
of doing history.
So there is a difference then according to
this paradigm
between something being non historical,
like a miracle or supernatural event and something
being unhistorical
and event is deemed unhistorical
when it is claimed to be natural
yet found highly implausible
due to a lack of evidence.
Obviously, the Quran describes several miracles,
but these are supernatural and thus intended to
be of rare occurrence.
But I would argue that the naturalistic
claims of the Quran, the claims of the
Quran that fall within the domain or purview
of modern secular historians,
these claims are sufficiently plausible.
With all due respect, the same cannot be
said of the Bible in many cases. Let's
look at an example. The Exodus as described
in the Bible, miracles aside,
the exodus is basically historically impossible. In other
words, unhistorical.
That is to say highly, highly implausible.
Yet somehow the Quran avoided many of the
problematic historical claims of the biblical authors. This
is for me an obvious daleel of the
nabua of the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi salam.
So the Bible says that 600,000 men of
fighting age made exodus from Egypt with Musa
alaihi salam. This number makes almost no historical
sense. This reminds me of the number of
Bani Queda that ibn Ishaq says were executed
in Medina.
His number makes almost no historical sense. It's
completely exaggerated. It has to be. And several
historians have pointed this out. And of course,
Sira literature and the Quran are vastly different
in their authoritative capacities
upon the Muslims. Our ulama have always approached
Sira cautiously.
Imam Malik was very critical of Ibn Ishaq.
The book of Exodus, however, is a primary
Jewish and Christian text. So 600,000
men of fighting age made Exodus according to
Exodus 12.
In other words, 600,000
men between the ages of 15 60, then
this means about 3,000,000 people made exodus from
Egypt If we count the women, children and
elderly, not to mention animals, 3,000,000 plus livestock.
Historically, this is near impossible, almost falsifiable.
This would mean that basically a third of
the entire population of Egypt made Hijra. This
event would have been noticed by other civilizations
in that region, yet no one recorded it.
3,000,000 people for 40 years would have left
a major footprint in the Sinai desert, and
we don't see that. If 3,000,000 people were
marching 10 men across,
when the first row reached Mount Sinai, the
last row would still have been in Egypt.
What does Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala say in
the Quran?
The Exodus is confirmed in its general sense.
So are some of the same miracles, but
again, it is not necessarily the miracles that
raise concerns for modern historians.
Miracles are meant to be rare. There are
crucial changes that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala makes
to the biblical narrative
that are often overlooked by even advanced readers.
These are called critical rewrites.
Sometimes people assume that the Quran is in
absolute agreement with the biblical narratives, but these
differences matter. Allah
says,
We reveal to Moses saying, journey under the
cover of night with my servants. Indeed, you
will be pursued.
And pharaoh sent summoners to the cities.
Saying these people are but a small remnant.
According to the Quran, a small group of
believers in Allah and his messenger Musa Alaihi
Salam made Hijra made Exodus. Khamenei Sahaba of
the prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Salam made Hijra
from Mecca to Medina.
It was not a big group. The biblical
version of the Exodus cannot be true historically,
while the Quranic version is very plausible.
If the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam plagiarized the
Bible, which has been the standard orientalist trope
since the days of John Damascene,
why didn't he copy these problems?
How did he know to make that adjustment
to the narrative? Here's another example. The ancient
rulers of Egypt were not called pharaohs until
the 18th dynasty,
the 18th dynasty of the new kingdom. So
around 1400 BCE,
you can ask any Egyptologist.
Therefore the rulers at the time of Yusuf
Alaihi Salam who lived in Egypt, probably during
the 16th dynasty,
the rulers at his time were simply called
Kings, Muluk, not pharaohs.
They did not use the word pharaoh to
refer to the ruler. Yet in Genesis, the
ruler of Egypt at Joseph's time was called
pharaoh. This is called an anachronism. In the
Quran, however, the ruler of Egypt in Surah
Yusuf is called Malik.
Yet
Yet the ruler of Egypt in the story
of Musa alaihi salam, who lived during the
18th or 19th dynasty of the new kingdom,
is called pharaoh Firaun.
How did the prophet Muhammad
know to make that adjustment to the narrative?
How did he know to avoid that anachronism?
There are linguistic subtleties in the Quran that
the prophet, peace be upon him, could not
have easily known. Allah says,
Now the name Zakaria in Hebrew, Zakaria,
means the mention of the Lord. It comes
from the word
Zakara is pronounced zakara in Hebrew.
So this verse is a subtle play on
words, the mention of the mercy of your
lord to his servant, the mention of the
Lord. There's this beautiful symmetry. The composer of
this verse certainly knew Hebrew. Jews living in
the Hejaz would have noticed this subtlety.
In fact, the entire Surat Maryam is an
exquisite celebration
of God's holy name in Hebrew with the
name Yeah echoing at the end of almost
every Ayah.
Another example,
In Surah Hud, Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala says
that Sarah, alayhi salam, was standing there and
she laughed when the angels told her of
her impending pregnancy.
Isaac in Hebrew means laughter.
And are from cognate roots in Arabic and
Hebrew respectively.
She laughed, so he gave her tidings of
Isaac, whose name means laughter.
It's very subtle. And then following Isaac, Jacob,
the name Isaac means in Hebrew means laughter
and Jacob means to follow or to come
after.
This is a type of wordplay that adds
to the eloquence and brilliance of the Quran.
Whoever composed this verse certainly knew Hebrew and
intended to delight our ears.
Another example, Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala says about
Yahya, alayhi salam,
Now Yahya is John the Baptist, peace be
upon him. The Quran calls him Yahya, meaning
he lives because he was martyred and the
martyrs are alive.
But the Hebrew name of John is Yohanan,
which is related to the word meaning
compassion.
This is the only occurrence of this word
in the entire Quran. It's a hapax and
it's describing Yahya alayhi salam because it actually
relates to his historical name. This is not
an accident.
These are subtleties that go over the head
of 99% of the Quran's readers. The author
of the Quran is playing with these languages
in a masterful way. He is a master
composer. So he said that from the standpoint
of history, the Quran's narratives avoid the historical
pitfalls of the biblical narratives.
I would say that this is also true
of the teachings of Jesus, peace be upon
him, Isa Alaihi Salam. And the Quran's Christology,
its statements about Christ, the Messiah, make more
historical sense than what the New Testament says
about the teachings of Jesus, peace be upon
him, even though the Quran came 500 years
after the New Testament. It's quite amazing.
Most historians today do not believe that the
historical Jesus claimed to be divine. They say
he claimed to be a prophet and a
healer who taught a more relaxed interpretation of
the Torah and that he spoke of someone
to come after him who would bring the
kingdom of God on earth.
Jesus called this person the Bar Enash, which
in Aramaic means the son of man, the
quintessential human being, al insan al kamil, the
one who is also prophesized in the book
of Daniel chapter 7. This requires another lecture,
but that is a historical Jesus in a
nutshell, and that is closer to Islam's Christology
than what Paul was preaching in the fifties
of the 1st century.
There are many, many other examples that can
be mentioned,
but we are almost out of time. How
true is a statement of Allah Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala when he said,
It is not possible for this Quran to
have been produced by anyone other than Allah.
In fact, it is a confirmation
of what came before it and an explanation
of the scripture. It is without a doubt
from the Lord of the worlds.
I'll end with this, Allah
The disbelievers from the people of the book
and the polytheists were not going to desist
from disbelief
until the clear proof came to them.
A
messenger from Allah reciting scrolls of utmost purity,
containing upright
commandments.
Imam Tabari said,
Meaning,
in the purified pages are books from Allah
that are upright, just, and straight. They have
no mistakes in them because they're from Allah,
the mighty and majestic.
So here, Qutuk means injunctions or laws.
Therefore, the divine prescriptions and prescriptions of the
Quran
will last until the day of judgment. It
is a final sacred law revealed to humanity.
It supersedes the sacred law of the Torah,
although many of the major injunctions of the
Torah are confirmed by the Quran as we
previously said.
In this way, the word Qutub could also
refer to the previous revelations
that within the Quran
are the essences of the previous Qutub or
scriptures, the Torah, the Psalms, and the gospel,
and Allah knows best. May Allah
bless us and accept our prayers and fasting
this Ramadan. Thank you for
listening. And don't forget to join Zaytuna's 12,000
strong initiative. See our website for more information.