Channel: Jamal Badawi
Series: Jamal Badawi - Jesus
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
AsSalamu Alaikum and welcome you once again to
today's programming shala will be our 63rd on Jesus to beloved messenger of Allah. topic for tonight. The question of sources. I'm your host Rashad munition here once again from St. Mary's University. Is that the Java dot SLA?
As we like to do it, how about a quick summary of last week's program? Okay, the topic for last week was to examine the fifth and final basis for the normal or common claim.
The idea of God incarnate that Jesus was both God and man.
And we examine that, first of all, by looking at the question of personal experience and testimony of people who change as a result of believing in this. And we responded by saying that this happened also was different having all kinds of divergent beliefs, people change also, regardless of what face they call, it doesn't show
conclusive proof of ultimate truthfulness.
And the issue of mystery, we tried to make a distinction between universe and mysteries that we all know and are familiar with, like, secrets of my own verse, and so on. But we can fully understand on one hand, and between some ideas like the Trinity, the notion of God incarnate substitutionary sacrifice, which are not really universally known mysteries, they are ideas that were in the words of some Christian theologians, intellectualized by human beings, explained by reason, they explained it intellectually and through reason and a modified and develop this over time. And as such, we cannot say it's our vision, because originally it came, by way of intellectual reason. So we
concluded from that, that
the notion that the God the Holy Spirit guided people to reach that conclusion is not necessarily as it
is a big difference.
Well, let's get to to the question of sources. First of all, why is it relevant in this series,
when the series, which I understand is winding down now, in the last one or two programs, Australia has really tried to deal in some depth
what both Muslims and their Christian Brothers and probably would agree, as the major reason of difference and understanding between the two communities, and that is the nature of Jesus as indicated in the previous program, it is not believing in Jesus loving him or honoring him because Muslims do the same, of course, but they don't be fighting with them. Think of Him as God in human form as a target prophet. And since we started that series, we had taken such an assumption, we said, we are going to analyze the topic, accepting the Quran as it is. And that applies to the first six or seven programs where Jesus peace be upon him was discussed in the light of the Quranic
revelation and the setting of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.
By the same token, when we started analyzing Jesus, from biblical sources, also discussing various issues and problems with the old the New Testament, we also made an assumption, or
convenience to make the discussion, perhaps more beneficial, by not raising an issue about the authority or authenticity of the Bible, but also to take it as is without inquiring what oath is, when and how when whatever it is, we didn't really touch on that issue.
I feel that this was a useful approach because
it shows that even even if we assume that everything in the Bible, which is quoted, in support, the idea of divinity of Jesus peace be upon him, even if you assume that the Bible is all authoritative, and authentic, we have seen that there is nothing really
conclusive concerning this idea of duplication, and that many of the texts that are normally the first two are really in different contexts altogether different examples in the Bible, and also that they could have very easily very reasonable alternative interpretation. But I thought that perhaps,
it is not also out of the ordinary in any competitive study, that a researcher or a searcher for truth, for that matter,
may also examine the conflicting claims
of both scriptures of being the Word of God. Both cannot be true, and Muslims, for example, throughout all the ages, have upheld the entire Quran, from A to Z is divine revelation, it is not biography written by people after the Prophet. It is not words, amalgam of different authors. It is not even the word of Muhammad himself when he was not receiving the specific, verbatim, revelation of the Quran. And this is universal, and still is,
for 1400 years or more Now, as far as the Bible is concerned,
I realize that, even though the modern high criticism has already shown that the Bible is indeed a human document, which may contain partly the Word of God, but alongside with the writings and opinions of many others, but there are still some Christian Brothers, and especially among the groups in the like in the fundamentalist stream, or newborn, who still uphold
that the Bible from A to Z is all a word of God.
At least for those people, it seems to be really a source of conflicting claims of the Scriptures, the Quran and the Bible. And the way the Quran speaks about Jesus, of course, might be different from what the Bible says, even though it could have a different interpretation, but even then, it has no notion whatsoever of this divinity. So the question here is this, which is, I think, is a fair question to ask.
of the scriptures of the Scriptures may have more weight in deciding the essence of ultimate truth?
But I know the issue could be rather sensitive because
in one sense, I should say that,
for one, I do respect that I have any human being, to believe what he feels is good for him or her. This is indeed part of the freedom of conscience, which is common in society. The verse in the Quran says, Let's be no compulsion in religion must be something out of conduction.
I must tell you that they may be some people who are quite happy or being dogmatic diagnostic of being unwilling to question anything for whom all the evidence in the world would not matter to them, because they have certain things that they wouldn't even question or try to understand.
One, whatever evidence, historical logic and scientific archaeological, would be certainly a gentleman for this people. And they have the right to do this. But on the other hand, I believe also,
that other people also in the rights should be respected in terms of multitudes of men and women of all faiths, including people within the community of the Christian world itself, who do not necessarily see faith and visually, as opposites of each other, are enemies of each other. They don't see the issue as a matter of either or that states and regions, but that these two are two complementary factors in understanding even matters of religion. I believe that those categories of people, including many Christians,
who are willing to approach the topic with open hearts and open minds, that insight into
discussion and analysis of the issue and an atmosphere of both freedom but still mutual respect, whenever a difference of opinion may arise, and definitely
in the actual examination of the Scriptures, what criteria Do you believe are very relevant and important? One, I believe that in any objective examination of any scripture, whether it's the Quran or the Bible, there are two fundamental questions. One
is the question of authority. Second is the question of authenticity by authority? Is there any sufficient
that the entire scripture will read the Quran or the Bible is fully the Word of God? Not the opinions of writers,
and biosynthesis? Are there sufficient evidence? That's what the prophets told the Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad peace be upon them on
their teaching rich as exactly as they thought? Do we have evidence that there have been no other fish and nutrients, no words put in their mouth or not?
As far as the question of authority, the first one,
I believe that this again could be divided into two issues, internal evidence, and external evidence. All right. Internal evidence means that we have to examine the scripture itself, to see whether there is any claim and it means that it is from God. It is not enough to have one or two claims it has to be consistent. Even if there are 100 claims that it is from God, but there's one that clearly indicates that it's not from God, then you can say it's not all that may depart from God but not all.
Secondly, the external evidence with respect to authority
means that when we examine the contents of any scripture, the Bible or the Koran, do we really find sufficient evidence that this is indeed the Word of God? Let me be more specific, I suggest, as you said, specific criteria that you can apply? Certainly, one, if it is totally the Word of God in the Scriptures, then it must be totally and absolutely free from any factual error. And by facts, we're not talking about guessing, factual error in a sense of statements made in the Scripture, which is contrary not to a scientific theory, but to an established well known scientific facts, because otherwise, we might be imputing ignorance on Gods which is an impossibility.
Secondly, that there must be complete absence of any contradiction in contradiction.
Of course, when I say contradiction here is an established contradiction, something that cannot be explained if you look at it, by way of exegesis or interpretation. For example, whether you speak about Islam or Christianity both have holes that God is merciful and kind. And some people might say, All right, let's consider that, you know, by further explanation, you know, this is not, or in case of both standard Christianity and project methods, I believe also in Judaism, there is belief in the absolute Word of God. But there is still belief in the human being as a free agent who has a power of threes, on the surface superficially might say, well, all of these scriptures are
contradictory or not, because it requires some experiments. But what I'm saying here as a second criterion is that there should be no contradiction that you describe a specific event,
not from two points of views, but in a totally contradictory way that does not really or cannot be reconciled. Three,
that we know that any scripture usually contains some sort of prophecy of things to come. Now, if any of those prophecies turned out to be incorrect, or does not come to pass, then at least that part could have not been the Word of God, because the knowledge of God includes not the past and present, but also everything in the future.
But firstly, and that would be contingent on the first three infrastructures meets the first two conditions is absence of any factual error, absence of any contradiction, absence of any prophecy that does not come to pass or was proven to be wrong, may be forcibly removed might be also evidence in the scriptures that shows that its contents could have not been arrived at by a human being or groups of human being at the time when it was recorded first, which was perhaps, or indicates that must have some sort of divine
source, that these are the criteria suggesting for the question of authority, which I believe are reasonable. As far as the question of authenticity, there are a number of questions that could be raised. When was the scripture written the first time in which language was that the same language of its Prophet, neurosis? What the writers eyewitnesses are not are they
versions, not just translations, other versions different of the same record of the teaching.
How significant is the differences? Are the differences on those versions? How would the descriptions get to come to us? translation who translated it? Who copied it?
What are the oldest copies available and so on?
Definitely, these questions are inevitable and has to be faced by any religious community sooner or later, if the person wins, he really wishes to go beyond a simple dogmatic statement of faith that
doesn't give any
or some way to phrase the question that you as a Muslim, did you prepare to have the same criteria to in examination of the cross? One, I would say that I'm not only prepared for that, but I will say that I have done it
in in a previous
lengthy series is called the
ultimate miracle. The Quran was examined in the most critical way that you can think so you invite the challenge, I invite challenge in a brotherly way, of course, challenge in the sense of challenging our mind and our thinking. And this criteria, disability criteria are used, which I think are not just criteria tailored to the person of course, that should apply. For instance, I see this as reasonable criteria.
And I do believe that any fair minded person, regardless of his or her religious backgrounds, who followed that series, or will follow it in the future, if you didn't have a chance to listen to it all.
Definitely, in my humble understanding, concludes
that the Quran did pass all those heart tests, all the criteria that were mentioned before.
While Of course, the information that we've covered in this series covering 64, half hour programs cannot be summarized in two minutes. But of course, the information is available for anyone who wishes to check on it. And since the series was disseminated in various forms and broadcasts in several community channels and other places, I have never received yet any
challenge to the information given or any question about the Quran, indeed, really being the Word of God, at least in terms of the evidence that was
So I believe that
the issue should also apply equally
to the to the Bible to also another scripture, which has different understanding with respect to the question of divinity of Jesus peace be upon him, maybe a few other issues.
But of course, given the, the length of that series,
we might not be able to spend another 64 programs on the Bible, which I think it's worth discussing, but I believe, at least, for the purpose of that series,
few points could be alternatives about the kinds of sources that both sides use in religious dialogues.
Well, begin with the question of authority. Now, what does it refer to? And how does that relate in the Bible? Okay, to go back again, to the medieval authority, basically, whether there is any evidence that the scriptures is fully Give me the Word of God, or is it a claim? I'm not saying
that this alone is sufficient evidence, but at least to start from the scripture itself, to see whether the claim is made or not?
As far as the Quran, as indicated before, that was already examined sizes not to be repetitious. But as as far as the Bible is concerned, we find that there's plenty of evidence
not all the passages in the Bible are claimed to be divine revelation.
To start with, to be fair, I know. I do know
that there are certain passages in the Bible, which on the surface of it, at least as claimed,
are claimed to be the Word of God.
I noted that by reviewing for example, how each of the Old Testament books began.
And I found for example, that in the beginning of the book of Israel,
It's actually licensing is a key. Hosea, Nolan, Jonah, mica, the famous Zechariah.
In all of these, I noted as one category that begins with something like, this is the word of the Lord that came to such and such. Specify, this is the word of God that came to. So that expression is quite familiar for anyone, you know who needs the assessment.
But there is a second possibility also where it speaks about visions that came to the Prophet. But it doesn't really clarify fully whether these are visions in the sense of revelation from God or personal visions. And this includes books like Oba diah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Molokai,
a third category
does not really state the source of information given. But it is obvious that it is history written by people, because you notice the beginning, it says something like there was a certain man like in the First Samuel, or it says, After the death of Moses, as in the book of Joshua, after the death of Joshua, like in the book of Judges, after the death of Ahab.
And as you find in the second book, beginning of the second Book of Kings, or after the death of soul, as we find them in the second book of seminary, and other books, it says in the days of Esther, in the days of this and that, so what I'm saying that in this third category, there is no indication, but it is obvious from the way it is written, that some historian or biographer was writing back in the days of such and such these things happen.
There is another category, however, and that's the one that I believe is very relevant in answering the question posed,
in which it is quite obvious,
that the words included in that book are the words of the author without any claim of divine revelation. Examples. Take the book of Mahamaya
ischaemia. It says, the word of Mahalia, did you say the word of God.
In the beginning of the book of Proverbs, it says, the Proverbs of Solomon,
in the beginning of the book of Ecclesiastes, it says, the word of the preachers, notice here, the word of the preacher, songs of Solomon, the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's, the book of Jeremiah, the words of Jeremiah, in the book of Amos, the word of Amos. Now, we have here, a whole range of varieties of expressions. The best last category is really, really interesting. Why? Because had this words all of them being revealed Word of God, verbatim? as they are? It would have not said the word of Solomon Mahamaya, or preacher, Jeremiah, or it could have said the word of God. And this is not unreasonable, because elsewhere in the Bible, it says it does say it does say that.
You guys, today's is a question in my mind. With respect to the internet evidence, I would say the internet evidence really is not that clear, as we find consistently.
So far, Jumanji given examples from the Old Testament. How about the New Testament? in the in the New Testament, we'll find also the same thing. Let me give you one very famous statement, which has been the subject of lots of research by Christian theologians. And that is the famous introduction to the Gospel according to Luke.
In chapter one, verse three of Luke.
He says, clearly, Luke, or the writer of the Gospel of Luke,
it seems good to me. Also, having followed all things closely, for some time passed, to arrive at an orderly account for you. Most Excellent fearfulness.
that Luke inviting his gospel does not claim that he was an eyewitness of Jesus discovery. It doesn't say I invited me according to what I have seen and heard from my myself with Jesus.
Secondly, he admits that he based on his gospel on existing material, something that was already
Thirdly, and that's important. He also admits that he did some editing, because he says, to write an order his account, he follows all things that is compared them, and then he starts inviting something and orderly account.
Now, the fact that he was an orderly account means that he saw some, maybe deficiency and the material that existed, he tried to organize it a little bit. And this is, again, not just a Muslim point of view, you find a biblical scholar, for example, by the name of Jay
B. Phillips. He says, in his introduction to the translation of the Gospel of Luke,
he says, quote, on his own admission, Luke has carefully compared and edited, edited, existing material, but it would seem that he had access to a good deal of additional material. And we can reasonably guess, in other words, when we use the term editing, as anyone knows what
editing means, you start saying, well, I bet parts can be deleted, that part should be added, that part should be abbreviated. That should be elaborated, distribute change around this way, or that way. That's what everything actually is, which means compared to already, the material existence, this process of editing, while it's good is human writing, it should not apply to the Word of God. Nobody edits the Word of God,
or else when we put himself on the same plane or authority like and if, like there are some
brothers still claim that everything in the Bible is divine revelation by written through the guidance of Holy Spirit, then the guidance of the Holy Spirit should be enough.
Should we know everything? Because it says divine revelation coming through the Holy Spirit, which is believed to be one person in the silent God's words, then there will be absolutely no reading for no need for editing, no need for ordinary things around.
That's why magazine, the issue really became very famous in biblical studies. And so far, I only discussed the Gospel according to Luke. And that's not the only as it is actually in the New Testament. So what other references from the New Testament relate to this issue?
Well, let me give you a few examples in the remaining couple of minutes in this program, first of all, in the second Peters, the chapter three, verse 15, Peter writes, and says, chord tones, depending upon the role to you, according to the wisdom, given him, he did not say according to the revelation of God given sin or not, according to the teaching of the Holy Ghost, giving him but even if there's any doubt about that, statement, three reflects upon himself what he said about what he teaches. In his letter to the Galatians. In chapter five, verse two, he says, and I quote, now, I form notice, I
say to you,
now, this is quite different from the statements because, for example, from the old systems when it says, This is the word of God that came to such and such prophet or servant.
Likewise, in the first book of Corinthians, in chapter seven, verse 25,
actually leaves no doubt whatsoever, that he is not speaking for God or being guided by the Holy Spirit, I quote him. Now, concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord. I have no command of the Lord. But I'll give you my opinion, as one, who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy sensation from the device, standard version. And finally, an interesting position that we referred to in a previous program. In the book of Romans in chapter three, verses seven and eight. He says, quote, but it's through my falsehood, God's faithfulness, unbalanced to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do even that good, may come?
So on the basis of the internal evidence alone, we find that neither the Old Testament or the new system for the claim consistently without exception, that it is that there comes the revelation of thank you very much that we will have to pick up on this honest note next week. inshallah. Thank you all for joining us here in a second for questions and your comments will be appreciated. Our phone number address will be on your screen.