Ali Ataie – The Qur’an Its Supernatural Provenance
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
The Quran Insha'Allah
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.
But in this, I just wanna mention a
few basic things that I've mentioned some of
these things in the past in in various
classes.
First of all, it's, I find it very
interesting that
the Quran predicts in both Meccan and Medina
and Sur
that it will be and, remain forever
the gold standard of of Arabic literature.
It predicts that it will be a sui
generis,
Arabic text. A one of a kind
and totally unique and inimitable masterpiece.
In other words, an insuperable text, an unsurpassable
text.
And when we consider,
eloquence and style
and just impact upon, humanity,
nothing is even, remotely close to the Quran
in the Arabic language
or in any language,
arguably.
And, of course, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, he
says in Quran.
If you are in doubt about
what we reveal to our servant from time
to time,
then produce a Surah like unto it and
call as your witnesses.
Anyone besides Allah
If you speak the truth,
and if you do not
and you will not,
then fear the fire whose fuel is men
and stones. Prepare for those who reject,
faith. So this is a clear,
prophecy.
And
Allah says,
The Quran is not such as can be
produced,
by other than Allah
Rather, it is a confirmation
of that which was before it and an
elaboration or you might say a clarification of
the Kitab, which in this context maybe you
can translate as the bible, a clarification of
the bible.
No doubt at all that it is from
the Lord of the worlds.
So with this in mind, I wanna say
a few things about the, sacred narratives,
in the Quran in comparison,
to the Bible. And, of course, I respect
the Bible. I've invested
my life to study the Bible, its history,
its theology, its languages.
The sacred narratives described in the Quran such
as the flood,
story of the flood at the time of
Nuh Alaihi Salam, the story of, Joseph, Yusuf
Alaihi Salam,
the story of the exodus, from Egypt, so
the Hijra of Musa Alaihi Salam with Bani
Israel.
I would argue that the Quranic versions of
these narratives
much make much more historical
sense
than their biblical counterparts.
And by historical, I mean, sort of in
the modern secular sense.
So why is this important? Well, I think
it's important because this is one of the
major reasons
why many Christians are rejecting the Bible and
abandoning Christianity.
I mean, I I know this for a
fact, and I keep up with these developments.
One of the major reasons why there has
been, and still is, a grand apostasy from
Christianity is because of the historical implausibility
of the biblical narratives. They do not hold
up well to modern historical scrutiny.
So just to mention this, very quickly, how
do modern secular or scientific historians establish history?
Well, it's all a game of plausibility.
Right? Plausibility is everything. So 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 and their
method, so their paradigm is strictly naturalistic.
So miracles are considered non historical,
meaning that they are not considered in the
modern secular method of doing history.
So there's a difference then according to this
paradigm between something that is non historical,
like a miracle or a supernatural event, and
something being unhistorical.
So an 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, so the claims of
the Quran that fall within the sort of
domain
or purview of modern secular historians,
these claims are sufficiently plausible,
and the same cannot be said in many
cases of the biblical narratives.
So give you an example. The Exodus as
described in the Bible.
Right? 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 these
problematic historical claims
of the biblical authors. And this is for
me an obvious daleel of the namua of
the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. And
Allah says
that Allah will demonstrate
the truth of his words
even though the sinners might detest it. So
the Bible says that,
600,000 men of fighting age made exodus from
Egypt with Musa Alaihi Salam.
So this number makes almost no historical sense.
This this actually reminds me of,
of Bani Khuraidah,
that the number of Bani Khuraidah that Ibn
Ishaq says were executed in Medina,
And his number makes almost no historical sense.
It's completely exaggerated.
I mean, it has to be exaggerated.
And several historians have pointed this out. And,
of course,
Sira literature in the Quran are vastly different
in their,
authoritative,
capacities upon the Muslims.
Our have always approached Sira cautiously.
Imam Malik was very, very critical of Ibn
Ishaq.
The book of Exodus, however, is a primary
Jewish and Christian text.
Right?
So so if 600,000 men of fighting age
made Exodus according to Exodus chapter 12, in
other words, 600,000
men
between the ages of 15 60,
then this means that about 3,000,000 people made
Exodus from Egypt.
If we count the women, the children, the
elderly, not to mention animals,
3,000,000 plus livestock.
So historically, this is
for all intents and purposes,
just impossible. This is almost falsifiable.
This would mean that basically a third
of the entire population of Egypt made Hijra.
So this 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.
To give you some perspective, if 3,000,000 people
were marching 10 men across,
when the first row reached Sinai, the last
row would still have been in Egypt.
That's the number 3,000,000.
So what does Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala say
in the Quran? Well the Exodus is confirmed
in its general sense
and so are some of the 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 makes the biblical narrative that are often
overlooked by even educated readers. These are called
critical rewrites.
Sometimes people assume that the Quran is an
absolute agreement with the biblical narratives,
but these differences matter.
Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala says,
We revealed to Moses saying, journey under the
cover of night with my servants. Indeed, you
will be pursued. So they all left in
one night.
And pharaoh sent summoners to the cities
saying these people are but a small remnant.
So according to the Koran, a small group
of believers
in Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala and his messenger,
Musa Alaihi Salam made Hijra made Exodus.
How many Sahaba of the prophet made Hijra
from Mecca to Medina?
It was not a big group.
The biblical version of the Exodus cannot be
true historically while the Qur'anic version is very
plausible.
If the prophet
plagiarized
the Bible, which is a standard orientalist trope
even to this day,
why didn't he copy these problems?
How did he know to make this adjustment
in the narrative?
Here's another example. The ancient rulers of Egypt
were not were not called pharaohs
until the 18th dynasty, the 18th dynasty, 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, mulk, not pharaohs.
They did not use the word pharaoh. Yet
in Genesis, the ruler of Egypt at Joseph's
time was called pharaoh.
So this is called an anachronism.
Right? This is a clear, unambiguous historical error
in the biblical narrative
with all due respect.
In the Quran, however, the ruler of Egypt
in Surah Yusuf is called Malik,
until the end of the ayah.
Yet the ruler of Egypt in the time
of Musa alayhi salam who lived during the
18th or 19th dynasties of the new kingdom
is called Firaun,
pharaoh, idhabilafirawnath
in Nahutara.
So the Quran in 6 20 or so
CE got it right historically.
The book of Genesis in 1,000 BCE or
800 BCE, if we take the dating of
Wellhausen,
got it wrong.
How did the prophet, in quotes, know to
make that adjustment to the narrative?
How did he know to avoid that anachronism?
And I say prophet in quotes because this
is from Allah
How did he know that the Badan or
the body of this pharaoh would one day
be discovered
and put on display for the world to
see.
Today, we will preserve your corpse
so that you may become a sign for
those who come after you. And surely, most
people are heedless
of our signs. So whether the pharaoh of
the Exodus was Ramses the second or Thutmose
the third,
both of their bodies were discovered in the
19th century. You can go to the Cairo
Museum now,
and actually see them. I have a friend
who went there. He's a bit eccentric.
And, he was told by the tour guide
that this is a pharaoh of the exodus,
and he leaned over into the ear of
this pharaoh, and he said, where you at
now?
It's a true story.
There are linguistic subtleties in the Quran that
the prophet
could not have easily known. Allah subhanahu wa
ta'ala says
Now the name Zakariyah in Hebrew, zakharia,
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 this beautiful symmetry in this one
ayah. The composer of this verse definitely knew
Hebrew. If a Jew living in the Hejaz
heard this verse, his ears would perk up.
He would notice this subtlety.
Another example Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala says,
In Surahood, Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala says that
Sarah, alaihi salam, was standing there and she
laughed
when the angels told her of her impending
pregnancy pregnancy.
Isaac in Hebrew means laughter.
And are from cognate roots in Arabic and
Hebrew respectively.
She laughed, so we gave her tie so
we gave her tidings of laughter
or Isaac.
And then following Isaac, Jacob, woman
and then following Isaac,
Jacob. The name Isaac in Hebrew means laughter.
The name Jacob means to follow or to
come after. So this is a type of
wordplay that adds to the eloquence and brilliance
of the Quran. Whoever composed this verse knew
Hebrew and, of course, Allah
is the one who composed the verse.
Another example, Allah says about Yahya alayhi salam
Now Yahia is John the Baptist, peace be
upon him. The Quran calls him Yahia.
Right? Meaning he lives because he was martyred
and martyrs are alive.
But the Hebrew name for John is Yohanan,
which is related to the word meaning
compassion.
This is the only occurrence of this word
in the entire Quran. It is a hapax,
and it's describing because
it actually
literally relates to his historical name.
That is not an accident.
So these are subtleties that go over the
head of probably 99% of the Quran's readers.
The author of the Quran is playing with
these languages in a masterful way. This is
a master composer.
Now what do we learn from the Quran
about the historical situation in the Hejaz during
the time of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam?
It's like Mecca around 610, 620 CE, the
late antique.
Allah
says
So the last ayah says, is it not
a sign for them, the mushrikeen,
that many ulama from the Jews knew him,
sallallahu alaihi salam, to be true?
So this verse gives us a key piece
of insight into the actual historical situation
in both Mecca and Yathrib before so we
call it Yathrib before the Hijra, but we'll
call it Medina,
The Quran would not make such a statement
unless it were true. It would not make
such a statement
if the Quraysh could just falsify
it immediately.
In other words, the Quran is reminding the
Quraysh what they already knew,
that Jewish scholars in Medina and elsewhere were
confirming the Nabuwa
of the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi sallam. These
were learned Ahlul Kitah, people of scripture.
They recognized him as a prophet before the
Hijra.
Ulama of the bible and biblical tradition
had recognized the prophet Muhammad
as being a true prophet.
In the medieval period when Jewish systematic theology
was crystallizing,
some of the rabbi said that the prophet
was a Go'il. Go'il means a mujedid of
sorts, a renewer of Tawhid.
You say they could not just ignore him.
And the reason is because the prophet sallallahu
alaihi wasallam was the greatest monotheist
of all time, and monotheism
was their claim to fame, the Jewish claim
to fame. They could not just ignore someone
who said
and was more successful in the spread of
monotheism
than all of their prophets put together.
Some of them said that he was a
Nevi Emit, which means a true prophet, but
he was only sent to the Goyim,
the Gentiles,
not the Jews. In other words, the 99
0.5%
of the world.
This was the position of rabbi Nathaniel Alfayumi
in his book Bustan Al Ukul.
Apparently, even many Jews in Medina during the
prophet's time took this position concerning him. They
knew he was a prophet, but they wavered
because he was an Arab, a gentile.
But as the Quran argues, Ibrahim Alaihi Salam,
whom the Jews refer to as Abraham
Avinu,
our father, our liege lord,
Abraham.
He also was not Jewish.
The very first person called a prophet in
the Torah is Abraham,
not Jewish.
That the closest in reality to Ibrahim Ibrahim
Alaihi Salam are those who follow him as
are this prophet
and those in the Sahaba and the Ummah
of the prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Salam.
Yamamat Timothy relates an interesting hadith and Abi
Musa
So some of the Jews would come and
they would sit in the gathering of the
prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam and sneeze on purpose
because they hope that a prophet would say
to them, may Allah have mercy upon you.
And the prophet will respond, may Allah guide
you and correct your understandings.
There were 3 huge Jewish tribes living in,
in Medina.
The book of Isaiah in the Tanakh,
revealed this location to them. I mentioned that
in the last Khutba.
So 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 Alai Salam.
That the Quran's Christology,
its statements about Christ, the Messiah, make more
historical sense
than what the New Testament says about the
teachings of Esa alayhis salan, even though the
Quran came 500 years
after the New Testament. It's quite amazing. I'll
come back to this in a minute. And
by the way, the name of Jesus, peace
be upon him, in Hebrew is Yeshua,
which is literally Jeshua Jeshua
in in English. So go to a Strong's
concordance and type in Jeshua or Yeshua,
and the meaning is he is saved.
He is rescued.
Rescued by God. This is what his name
literally means.
Allah Subhanahu
Wa Ta'ala tells us in the Quran they
did not kill Isa Alaihi Salam
for a surety God raised him unto himself.
And, of course, we have this verse in
the Psalms, Psalm 20 verse 6. It's attributed
to David. This is what it sounds like
in Hebrew.
So David writes, whether it's David that's
an interesting verse, He says, I know God
will save his Messiah.
He shall hear him from his holy heaven
with the saving power of his right hand.
God will save his Messiah.
Most historians today do not believe that the
historical Jesus, peace be upon him, claimed to
be divine.
They say that 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 Inas, which
in Aramaic means the son of man, the
one who is also prophesized in the book
of Daniel chapter 7. This requires another lecture.
But that is the historical Jesus in a
nutshell, and that is closer to Islam's Christology
that what Paul was teaching in the fifties
in the 1st century.
Now what about the crucifixion?
So here the Christian will point to the
Muslim,
will point out to the Muslim that most
historians say that Jesus was crucified
while the Quran denies it. The Quran is
denying a historical fact, they say. But here
I would argue that historians have generally highly
overemphasized
the historicity of the crucifixion. And if they
look closely at the evidence again,
many of them will affirm at least the
historical
plausibility
that Jesus was never crucified. And that's all
we need to establish, historical plausibility.
If it's plausible that Jesus was never crucified,
then no one can say that the Quran
contains a historical error.
What does the Quran actually say? It says
those who differed about it, I e, the
crucifixion,
were in doubt, Sheikh, concerning it. They did
not have certain knowledge,
except they followed the Dan conjecture.
So this is amazing. In other words, none
of the evidence that Jews and Christians marshal
to support Jesus' crucifixion,
none of it was written by an eyewitness
to this alleged historical event.
Every single epistle gospel, every statement in Christian,
Jewish, and Roman sources without exception
came much later and were authored by people
who were not there.
Paul of Tarsus was the first person in
recorded history to claim that Jesus was crucified.
This was 20 years after the alleged event
and he wasn't even there.
Paul never met the historical Jesus.
My contention is that Paul was the 1st
Christian, that is to say first believer in
the early Jesus movement, who said that Jesus
was crucified. In other words, there is no
strong evidence
that any actual disciples of Jesus believed that
he was crucified.
James, the brother of Jesus,
was a successor and leader of the Jerusalem
based Nazarenes for 30 years. Everyone agrees with
this.
Yet we have 0 authentic writings
attributed
to James or from Peter. All we have
is Paul,
and Paul had major disagreements with Jerusalem apostles
even according to his own letters.
So the 4 Gospels and Paul's letters, the
Pauline corpus, all of these sources are conjectural.
They are.
Today we know that this is true. The
Quran is correct.
But back when the prophet first uttered these
words from Surah Al Nisa,
Christians and historians believed that the 4 gospels
were written by 2 disciples of Jesus, and
the other 2 were written by 2 disciples
of disciples.
And all 4 gospels say Jesus was crucified.
No historian really believes these attributions
anymore.
These books are anonymous,
written decades decades later by highly educated Greek
speaking gentile Christian converts,
not Aramaic speaking 1st century Galilean Jews.
As it turns out, the Quran is correct.
These sources are conjectural,
yet most historians continue to drag their feet
on this issue. 1 of my teachers said
it like this. He He said if the
prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam is the real
author of the Quran and he desperately hoped
he desperately hoped to convert Jews and Christians
to Islam and to become his followers, then
why in the world
did he deny the crucifixion of Jesus
when both Jews and Christians maintained that he
was crucified?
Why would he invent an uncrucified
Jesus?
Why would he create an unnecessary barrier to
confusion to to conversion?
The answer seems to be that the Quran
is stating an actual fact
since it has direct access
to history as a divine revelation. It is
simply a fact that Jesus of Nazareth, peace
be upon him, the son of Mary, peace
be upon her, was not crucified.
Now there's another verse in the Quran that
is very often attacked by polemicists as being,
historically inaccurate.
The verse says,
and the Jews say, Ruzair is the son
of God. And the Christians say the Messiah
is the son of God.
Now most often, Ruzair is translated as Ezra,
and so critics are quick to point out
that no Jew ever said that Ezra was
the son of God. The Quran is simply
wrong here.
That's the claim.
But this claim is, to use a technical
term,
bogus.
They haven't done the research.
They haven't looked into something called Merkava Mysticism.
According to Gordon Newby in his book, A
History of the Jews in Arabia,
both Enoch and Ezra were associated and identified
mentioned in his book Kitabul Anwar wal maraqib
that just as Christians starting specifically with Paul
were guilty of ascribing divinity to Jesus, rabbinical
Jews were equally guilty of deifying and worshiping
the angel, Metatron.
In, 3rd Enoch, which is a text written
in the 2nd century, Metatron is explicitly called
the lesser Yahweh and the prince of the
universe, the Sar HaOlam.
God is the Melech HaOlam.
So this is the son of God.
It says that the king crowns and clothes
Metatron with a garment of majesty.
There are also indications in the Talmud that
there were Jews who took to worshiping the
angel Metatron as a junior god or rather
son of god
in the Greek or Christian sense. And, course,
Metatron
sounds like Megatron,
but has nothing to do with Megatron. Metatron
comes from meta and thronos probably, which means
behind the throne. So this is the angel
that sat on God's throne, shares the throne
with God as God's son.
The famous 14th century Spanish rabbi, Nissim of
Girona, approved of praying to angels.
This was a wide practice.
So as a lesser Yahweh, Metatron had become
a logos figure
akin to the Christian Jesus, and both Enoch
and Ezra were associated with Metatron.
As it turns out, the Quran is correct.
I'll end with this inshallah. I'm running out
of time. I'm out of time actually, but
I'll end with this. So in Mecca, the
Quraish, they sought counsel from the Jews in
Medina.
What should we ask him? You're people of
the book.
We're pagans. What should we ask him? So
one of the questions that the Jews told
Abu Sufyan ibn Uhar to ask the prophet
was about Durkarnayn.
They ask you concerning.
I shall tell you something of his story.
So
the Jews want the prophet to verify a
certain specific
tradition. Okay. Obviously, the Jews in Medina
had some narrative in mind. Otherwise,
how would they verify
the prophet's answer?
So we get 17 ayat,
suratulkaf,
84 to 99 about Durkharayn,
his 3 journeys. Means
the,
the possessor of the 2 horns.
Let's go to Daniel 83.
Daniel says, and I raised my eyes, and
I saw in a vision a ram standing
before a river.
Having 2 horns.
In the Arabic bible,
and the
Daniel 84. I saw the ram charging to
the west,
the north,
and the south.
3 journeys.
No animal could stand against him, and there
was no rescue from his power. He did
whatever he wanted and became great.
Allah
Later in chapter 8, Gabriel tells Daniel the
answer.
Daniel 820.
He says in the Hebrew language,
or in the Arabic translation done by Christians.
Indeed the ram which you saw possessing 2
horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
Now Media and Persia combined to form the
Achaemenid
Empire,
and 2 of their kings were known for
being monotheists,
famously.
Cyrus the Great, who is explicitly praised in
the book of Isaiah,
and Darius the Great. Here's a quote from
the New World Encyclopedia.
Quote, Darius also continued the process of religious
tolerance to his subjects,
which had been important parts of the reigns
of Cyrus and Cambyses.
Darius himself was likely monotheistic.
In oral inscriptions, Ahura Mazda is the only
god mentioned by name, end quote.
And of course of course, Kurosh and Darius
or Cyrus and Darius or Darius
dealt with the Scythians who were these fierce
nomadic warriors who flourished on the Eurasian
Steppe causing havoc. Perhaps these were Gog and
Magog.
Allahu Alam. I'm way out of time. The
point is the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam got
the right answer. As it turns out, the
Quran is correct. May Allah
strengthen our iman with knowledge. May Allah make
us a means of guidance and not a
hindrance, to guidance.
We ask you to forgive and have mercy
upon Sayeda Najma Qureshi,
the mother of our beloved, teachers and colleagues,
doctor Omar and doctor Jawad Qureshi. You Allah,
have mercy upon her and give her the
highest stations
in the company of the prophets and the
saints and give ease and comfort to her
family in these difficult times.