Jamal Badawi – The Quran – Ultimate Miracle 9 – Source Of The Quran 08 Borrowing From The Bible 1

			AsSalam alaikum Peace be back for another episode of Islamic focus, we're continuing with our series
dealing with the sources of Islam.
		

			We will be talking about the authorship of the Quran and today we'll be looking at what I hope you
will consider a very interesting topic and that is the Bible as a possible source of the Quran. I'm
your host handle Rashid and I have joined me on the program as usual. Dr. Jamal Badawi of St. Mary's
University of Jamal Assalamu alaykum Mali could not be further we get into today's interesting
discussion. I wonder if I could have you perhaps just summarize the main points that we touched on
in our program last week. Okay. Last week's program was part of a series of examination of the
source of the Quran or its authorship. And when we began, we said that there are three basic
		

			assumptions, possible assumptions, that the Quran was authored by Prophet Muhammad, that he learned
it from some other source, or that it is a revelation from Allah. So in a number of programs, we
examine the possibility that Prophet Mohammed himself would have been the author. And in several
programs, it was shown that this is an totally untenable type of assumption. So last week program
was simply an examination of the second assumption. Is it possible that Prophet Muhammad peace be
upon him learned the Quran through some other source, and we try to examine whether they could have
been a possible human teacher or teachers
		

			from whom the Prophet learned or could have learned the Quran. And we tried to analyze that in terms
of the characteristics of the Prophet himself and his own character and behavior as a trusted
person. The fact that the environment in which he was brought up did not really provide for this
kind of knowledge or information. We discussed other aspects with respect to other
		

			you know, Jews or Christians living somewhere in the
		

			Arabian Peninsula, or people that he might have met in his very limited travels, that we concluded
basically, that
		

			his life was totally exposed to everyone, and everybody could see what his contacts are, and his
opponents were keeping their eyes open. And if there was the slightest evidence of any human
teacher, or teachers, it could have been very clearly recorded in history. And that shows again,
that if there were any teachers, to the Prophet, as far as the Quran is concerned, it has none but
Gabrielle, the engine of revelation as we find in the Quran. In chapter 53, verse six, he was taught
by Gabrielle who communicated that Quran from unanswered any question of human source really, again,
was not very fun. And I'm sure for the bulk of our viewers, most would feel that
		

			they'll probably agree with me that we've probably provided sufficient evidence in the last three or
four programs to answer the question of authorship of the Quran. But there is one very interesting
area that we haven't touched on in our programs at this point. And that has to do with the question
of parallels between the Quran and the Bible. Many writers that point out the similarities that
exist between the Bible and the Quran, they in the Quran, and they conclude from that, that the
Quran was influenced by the Bible. How would you respond? How would you react to that supposition?
Well, it's interesting to notice that for centuries, there have been lots of especially in recent
		

			decades, if you want lots of orientalists, in particular, who have been busying themselves, in
trying to discover, you know, the parallels between the two books. But the main purpose behind this
whole exercise really was to show the influence of the Quran or of the Judeo Christian traditions on
Islam or the Quran.
		

			But in this endeavor, they seem to have been a number of points that were either consumed or
		

			probably forgotten.
		

			First of all,
		

			to assume that there is any or there was any influence of any previous scriptures on the Quran.
		

			In fact would be another way of saying that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was perhaps one of
the most notorious pleasure risers in human history, who carefully studied previous scriptures
chosen specifically the things that would constitute a consistent, perfect set and came up with a
kind of new ideology and again claim that it is coming from some divine source. And we have already
seen in previous programs that on the basis of psychological grounds, historical logical grounds,
		

			that this kind of assumption is certainly far from
		

			reality.
		

			A second point that seemed to be forgotten also in that exercise of the so called parents,
		

			was expressed very nicely by
		

			Dr. dubawi, in his very useful volume called as English speaking, orientalist, which was published
by the Islamic Center in Geneva, Switzerland,
		

			in which he says, as a historian and a scholar, he said, the similarity between any two compositions
or books, let's say,
		

			it was not in itself is sufficient evidence to infer that one of them copied from the others, or the
later one copied from the earlier one. And it gives a very reasonable argument, which is used by
historians also in some analysis of texts. Because you said that both books are both compositions
could in turn, both of them be based on a third source, a common source.
		

			So even if it were a human book, if the Quran and the Bible were human books, which we don't believe
they were totally human writings, and will indicate that
		

			even that is not sufficient evidence.
		

			A third point
		

			is that there are definitely certain parts of the Bible that might have remained intact, and
reflects the some basis of the revelation that was given to prophets before. And we will find also
the doctrine is totally, completely nothing but the Pure Word of Allah or God, that is totally
divine revelation.
		

			And if
		

			Allah, or God, capital G, was the source of both revelations, then that answered the question, if
there is any similarity, it's simply because the source of revelation that was given to Moses,
Jesus, David or other prophets, is the same source also that gave this revelation to Prophet
Mohammed. So what is so strange then, that there are certain things in the Quran which are similar
to the Bible, whether it relates to some basic truths to basic moral teaching, or other aspects,
that doesn't mean at all that when copied from the others. In fact, some scholars even carry the
point further. And they say that if you take for example, something like the 10 commandments, you
		

			may find that in some religions that preceded both Christianity and Judaism, if you go back to old
Hindu writings, for example, you might find some similar kinds of statements. Does that mean that
Judeo Christian tradition will all
		

			be copied from Hindu scriptures? Nobody really can make that unreasonable assumption.
		

			The other point that should be added here is that
		

			in the in this kind of discussion, there seem to be an implicit assumption that a scripture or book
because it is more recent, has more validity or more important, sorry, scripture, which is old that
has more validity than that than one that is more recent. And that's not necessarily true. Now,
that's an interesting point, you don't think this is necessary? So it's not automatic that older
scripture is necessarily more dependable than the latter one? No, I don't think so. Could you
perhaps
		

			Okay, suppose even assume that two scriptures or revelations were equally preserved in intact and
their purity.
		

			And that would be a different story altogether.
		

			But the situation here is rather different. Let me at least touch on two basic areas here.
		

			Now,
		

			if there were sufficient historical evidence, historical, logical or otherwise, that the latest
revelation
		

			in fact was revealed.
		

			But intention of superseding the prior revelation, yes, then it becomes even more important and it's
recency or relative recency becomes a plus rather than a minus. In other words, if God has revealed
his will, in different ways throughout human history, and kept in mind in His revelation, the
evolution of the human race. And then came the final revelation, the last, I don't want to say
addition, because it might make it similar to him and he authored books. But let's say the last form
of Revelation, being more recent and being lost, in fact, is an advantage doesn't make all the
scriptures more valid, because it's supposed to supersede it actually makes a reference to that
		

			particular characteristic of the Quran in chapter five, in Isaiah 48.
		

			Secondly,
		

			to compare scriptures also, one has to keep in mind the question of authenticity, and how far each
of them remain fully intact. And there is an ample evidence, of course, that only in the case of the
Quran, and no other scriptures, that was the field before the Quran, do we find clear evidence and
clear proof that it was not subjected to being mixed with human interpretations or additions at
later time that it has been recorded in the lifetime of its profit under his supervision in the same
original language? So again, one cannot compare just the old diversity there isn't. But one has to
look very carefully also into the relative authenticity and how each of them actually
		

			glitched our hands today.
		

			When you say that the Quran supersedes the previous scriptures, we to infer from that or does that
mean that there should be no comparisons or any attempt to compare the Bible in the Koran, what
there might be some people actually who may hold that view and say that you're really comparing two
documents, which are really quite different. You're comparing one document, which is a combination
of revelation plus other commentary by followers of these prophets. That's the case of the Bible,
versus something which is totally and exclusively the word of Allah or revelation, without any human
agency being part of the content of the Quran, or selling any part of the Quran.
		

			But in my humble understanding,
		

			I don't see much problem in making comparisons whether this comparison is made by a Muslim scholar
or non Muslim scholar, if the intention behind it is to analyze issues and try to develop better
understanding of some of the common problems, provided, of course, that the basic differences
between the Bible and the Quran should be kept in mind before we jump to any particular comparison.
Could you shed some light on what you perceive these differences to be between the Quran and the
Bible just mean fundamental ones fundamental difference? Well, first of all, when we speak about the
Bible, you're not really speaking of one book as such, we're actually talking about a composite of
		

			66 different books, at least in the Protestant version, in the Catholic version, there are a few
more books
		

			which were written by so many different authors through different periods of human history. You
compare that with with the Quran, you find it's quite different as a scripture, because the Quran is
just one book, one cohesive, consistent book, there is no question of more than one author at all.
It all came as a revelation or direct revelation from Allah to his last prophet Muhammad. There is
no problem with the time of writing, it was all written
		

			during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and more specifically, even during his
mission, you know, from the age of 40, to roughly 63. Secondly,
		

			again, when you talk about the Bible, you're really talking, as indicated earlier about a composite
or mixture of both certain injunctions and teachings, which may have had some origin in terms of
divine revelation that was given to earlier prophets. But alongside with that, there are also
interpretations and commentary made by later followers. In the case of the Quran, being regarded as
the pure revelation, Pure Word of Allah, it doesn't have this commentary, so you're not really
talking about the same thing. Notice here but as we indicated in the first program in this series,
that even the words of Prophet Mohammed himself
		

			when he was not receiving the Quran specifically are kept totally separate from what he uttered
under the state of revelation when the Quran
		

			was dictated to him word for word. His other sayings are known as Hadees, and are found in totally
separate volumes. So the there's a big difference here as to the nature of the Scripture. The third
comparison here is that in the case of the Bible,
		

			we find that in both the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, that there is some element of
biography about the prophets, not what the prophets actually received, by way of Revelation. For
example, the book of Deuteronomy speaks about Moses, peace be upon him, Prophet Moses, and what he
did. And so it talks about him not simply what you taught also. And obviously, of course, in the New
Testament, in the four gospels, speak about Jesus. So they are basically like four different
biographies about the life and in deeds of Prophet Jesus peace be upon him written by his followers.
In the Quran, however, we find that it's not simply a biography about Prophet Mohammed written by
		

			his followers, there is no human interference in terms of what the court really contains. Yes.
		

			There might be certain incidents with the word of Allah Himself. That's the Quran mentioned
something that happened in the lifetime of the Prophet by way of providing commandments and
directives. But the Quran is not simply a biography, or even partly a biography of the Prophet
written by others, this is known actually, as Sera, s, e, r, h, or lifetime of the prophets, which
is again kept totally separate from the crown, and separate from, from Hades or the prophetic,
saintly. And maybe if I may add one more, let's say basic point of comparison also,
		

			is that in the case of the Bible, we find that there are several books, which were written down many
years after the death of these prophets, or the end of their mission here on Earth.
		

			That is why we find that biblical scholars indicate that there are a number of difficulties or
problems because of this kind of method of preservation. There are some issues about the authorship
of some books, who actually was the writer of this book, or that book in the Bible.
		

			For example, the book of Hebrews, in the New Testament, there are still some biblical scholar who
wonder whether it was written by corn or someone else. It's a disputed issue. There are others like
Titus, for example, where there are some question again, whether it was actually Paul, who wrote it,
or was it attributed to him?
		

			Because these books also are many of them were not written or available to us in the same origin and
language in which these prophets spoke, we find that there are questions also about the identity of
the translators, who was the translator or translators of any particular book? When was it
translated, when the original writing was made where and these are issues biblical scholars deal
with that, for example, if you refer to FC grant, the book called The gospels, their origin and
their growth, you find some discussion of these issues.
		

			For example, in the 1960, edition of Encyclopedia Britannica,
		

			we find that it indicates that the four gospels might have gained currency or prestige simply
because it's one or the other was adopted by one of the major churches of the time. An interesting
citation, for example, from Encyclopedia Americana, in the 1959 edition, volume three, and more
specifically in Pages 651, through 653
		

			indicates that they're quite disparate, we have no such knowledge as to how or where the four four
gospels canon came to be formed. So even the fundamental gospels themselves are
		

			it is known also, as you know, in history that the four gospels were not the only one. In the case
of the Quran.
		

			The problem doesn't arise at all because the entire Quran was written down directly from the mouth
of the Prophet memorized by multitudes around him in his lifetime, in the original language in which
the Quran was revealed that is the Arabic language there is no difficulty with the question of
translation. And if you have any doubt, you can go to the same original.
		

			So in that sense, you can say that there was no human judgment involved really, in what is to be
contained in the Quran. So this is this are some of the fundamental difference one has to keep in
mind. If any comparison is made. Or could you explain for us what is meant by
		

			The second there was no human judgment that was involved. And how does that relate to the question
of comparison? Well, let me give an illustration, for example from the Bible, because that would
make the point. I hope, that clearer here, for example, in the New Testament,
		

			and more particularly the Gospels, the four gospels, we are told by the church historians, that the
four canonized gospels, which you find now in the available copies of the Bible, were not really the
only accounts of the life of Prophet Jesus peace be upon him. And there were so many other gospels,
plenty of them, and that these four were actually selected only in the conference of nice church
meeting in the year 325. So that was, so many decades after Jesus peace be upon him.
		

			We are not discussing here again on what this is the this were selected and what this is, others
will reject it. But again, we're really not talking about something which is uniformly agreed to our
own narratives about the life of Prophet Jesus.
		

			For example, as you know, some historians refer to the Gospel of St. Barnabas, which is not accepted
as a canonized gospel and has some fundamental differences from the four other gospels with respect
to the question of divinity of Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him. But in other words, there were
other gospels too.
		

			But we are also taught by church historians themselves that in the various subsequent conferences,
or synod's meetings of the church, leaders, and clergy, sometimes some books would be accepted in a
later time they will be rejected or the reverse. So it was not something like you say, like the
Bible, the 66 books or whatever, are exactly the same throughout history, and they were all regarded
as part of the Bible. And anything else is outside the question of what is inside the Bible and
what's outside the Bible has been a matter of dispute and subject of what I call actually human
judgment, that human beings were sitting in conferences to determine which part is revelation, and
		

			authentic and which part is not revelation.
		

			So the the main issue here is that the there is no such pattern at all in the Quran. We've never
heard in Islamic history of someone who will say, for example, let's hold the meeting among the
Muslim religious scholars, in order to determine what sutras or portions of the Quran should be in
or what should be out and then change that at a later time. Nobody had the right to do that, because
nobody has the right to supersede the world of mastering. There's no such problem that has risen in
the case of the preservation in the Quran. Of course, this does not mean I should say that a Muslim
		

			really should say that I don't believe a word from the Bible from the A to Z, that probably would be
again, an overstatement. What I'm saying basically, is that when comparisons are studies made, one
has to keep in mind this fundamental questions
		

			is what I'm studying, from what you've just said from your last statement that Muslims do, except
there's some portions of the Bible despite the difficulties that we've just been discussing.
		

			When,
		

			in fact, this is basically true, I would say and in fact, in some earlier statements in this program
or previous programs, it was indicated that it is part and parcel of the Muslim belief. One of the
fundamentals of faith, if you will, is to believe in the
		

			original scriptures or original revelations or holy books in their original form that were given to
her previous prophets in the past. Now, this kind of statement or position of the Muslim does not
change in fact, or should not change because of the difficulties involved in recording or keeping
the Bible itself, or questions related to authenticity.
		

			But the acceptance of the Muslim of the previous scriptures that are relations is actually
qualified, qualified by its consistency with the Quran. Since the Quran is the last revelation, the
last word or final word of the Creator. And anything that is consistent with the Quran, there is no
problem with the Muslim accepting that at all.
		

			But you should keep in mind also, that when the Quran speaks, about legitimate revelations or holy
books are given to previous prophets in the past, like the Torah to Moses or in jail to Jesus or
Zabar's to David.
		

			It does not mean that these are synonymous with what we call today. The Bible and
		

			This is a very common error, I find error actually, in the minds of some non Muslims as well as some
Muslims themselves do not really understand this basic difference, they're not synonymous. Now, if
this is a common error, it may be useful to explain why, you know, before we begin any kind of
substantive comparison between the Bible and the ground? Well, first of all, before I even get into
the answer to that question, I'd like to indicate that some of the points that I might mention here
may sound elementary to, let's say, a Jewish or Christian viewer. But I want to seek that indulgence
because I wanted to communicate also to Muslim viewers who might not have that much familiarity with
		

			the Bible, so that there would be more mutual understanding. So everybody knows exactly especially
when Muslims discuss with their Christian or Jewish friends, that it should be some clarity of what
the terms actually mean.
		

			To start with, as indicated earlier, the Quran speaks about previous scriptures, or holy books given
to previous prophets, more specifically, there is talk about the source of our lives given to
Abraham, as aboard, given to Prophet David, whether it's the same as the Psalms of David or not, we
cannot really say for sure, Torah, or a Torah, to Moses and ngl. to Prophet Jesus peace be upon him.
These are ones that are mentioned, clearly and specifically in the Quran. And as I said earlier, a
Muslim who rejects any of these books in their original form, it is such evidence that they are in
the original intact form. He's rejecting Islam, because part of the belief of the Muslims to believe
		

			in the prophet and what has been given to these prophets, I think we've documented that in several
programs before.
		

			But the point here is that the term Bible is actually in just refers to, as we indicated earlier,
to, let's say, a collection of 66 books if we take the Protestant version.
		

			We're talking here about two basic sections really, in the Bible, the Old Testament, and the New
Testament, the Old Testament or the writings that was before the coming of Jesus peace be upon him
New Testament is the new era or after he came. In the Old Testament, we have a total of 69 books. In
the New Testament, we have the 27 books, again, taking the Protestant version as an example in
question. Let's take the New Testament, sorry, the Old Testament, the Old Testament is composed of
39 books, and only the first five of them
		

			are referred to as the law or tend to talk.
		

			I hope I pronounced that right, sometimes also referred to in English as Torah, of Moses, in the
book of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
		

			It is quite significant here to realize that when the Quran speaks about the Torah given to Moses,
he does not speak about the Bible does not speak about the Old Testament, the 59 books. And I would
say even it does not speak even of the five books that are known as the Torah, among the Jews and
Christians today are the law. The reason being is that
		

			the Quran speaks about the Torah given to Prophet Moses as a revelation.
		

			But when you examine these five books, you will find that, for example, in the book of Genesis,
there are certain historical aspects that preceded the coming of Moses. And you don't know exactly
whether this were part of the revelation given on Mount Sinai or something based on previous
writings. Secondly, in the book of Exodus, almost half of the book of Exodus speaks about the story
of that skylights and their deliverance from Egypt. And that was before Moses even received the
Torah on Sunday.
		

			The fifth book of the law of Torah as known to the west,
		

			includes the book of Deuteronomy includes addresses and teachings of Prophet Moses, not necessarily
what God told him to preach to be his own also interpretation.
		

			It includes even certain portions that apparently were written down after Moses. So it cannot be the
Torah received by Moses, for example, the towards the end of chapter 34, on the book of Deuteronomy,
from verses, for example, five to 12. It speaks about Moses dying in such and such land and being
buried. So it talks about something after even Moses after the lifetime of Moses, how could it be
that already seen, for example, on Mount Sinai similarly, if you take the New Testament, we find
again that the Quran speaks about Jesus being given a revelation, a book called LMG. That is not the
same as the New Testament, which include more than the Gospels. It is not
		

			equivalent to any or all of the four gospels either because these are, as we indicated earlier
biographies about the life of Jesus but not necessarily what the Quran refers to as specific
instructions, Revelation or scripture given to Prophet Jesus peace be upon him. But with this points
not withstanding this reservation. Personally, I don't feel much problem really of making
comparisons if we are aware, at least of those
		

			differences. But I think we'll conclude for today, we want to invite you back when next week we will
examine some key doctrines between that are carried in both the Quran and the Bible. Thank you for
watching. That's our program today. Assalamu alaikum peace be unto you