 It is a fact that the sacred narratives described in the Qur'an, such as the story of the flood at the time of Nuh, the story of Joseph, Yusuf, the story of the Exodus from Egypt, the Hijrah of Musa, with the Bani Israel, the Qur'anic versions of these narratives make much more historical sense than their biblical counterparts. In other words, the flood and the Exodus, as described in the Bible, are basically historically impossible, or at least highly implausible. Somehow the Qur'an avoided many of the problematic historical claims of the biblical authors. And this is from the Dela'il An-Nabuwa. This is one of the proofs of prophecy. This is a proof that the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam was a true prophet, a true prophet. For example, I'll give you an example. The Bible says that 600,000 men of fighting age made Exodus from Egypt with Musa A.S. This means about 3 million people made Exodus from Egypt. If we count the women, the children, the elderly, not to mention animals, 3 million people plus livestock. Historically, this is almost falsifiable. This would mean that basically a third of the entire population of Egypt made Hijrah. This would have been noticed by other civilizations in that region, yet no one recorded it. 3 million people for 40 years would have left a major footprint in the Sinai Desert. There is none. If 3 million people were marching, just to give you a visual or to conceptualize this a little bit, if 3 million people were marching, 10 men across, when the first row reached Mount Sinai, the last row would have still been in Egypt. What does Allah SWT say in the Qur'an? The Exodus is confirmed in its general sense in the Qur'an, but there are changes that Allah SWT makes to the narrative that are extremely important and often overlooked by even scholars, let alone average readers. Allah SWT says, We reveal to Musa A.S. 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 a small remnant according to the Qur'an. A small group of believers in Allah and his messenger Musa A.S. made Hijrah, made the Exodus. How many Sahaba made Hijrah from Mecca to Medina during the time of the Prophet SAW? It was a small group. The Biblical version of the Exodus cannot be true historically, while the Qur'anic version is very plausible. If the Prophet Muhammad SAW plagiarized the Bible, which is the standard Qur'anic, the standard Afwan, the standard Orientalist trope that he plagiarized the Bible in the Qur'an, then they say this even to this day. Why didn't he copy these problems? How did he know to make this adjustment to the narrative? How did the Prophet SAW in quotes know that the rulers of Egypt at the time of Yusuf A.S. were called muluk. They were called kings, not pharaohs. The ruler at the time of Musa A.S. was called Pharaoh. The Qur'an is correct historically. The Book of Genesis gets it wrong. Why didn't the Prophet SAW call the ruler? Why didn't the Prophet again in quotes call the ruler of Egypt at the time of Yusuf A.S.? A pharaoh like the Bible did. How did he know to make this adjustment to the narrative? How did he know to avoid this anachronism? It's called anachronism. There are linguistic subtleties in the Qur'an that the Prophet SAW could not have known. Allah SWT says, The name Zakaria in Hebrew means the mention of the Lord. This is what his name, Zakaria in Hebrew, means the mention of the Lord. So this verse is a play on words. The mention of the mercy of your Lord to His servant, the mention of the Lord. There's this beautiful subtle symmetry in this one ayah. The author of this ayah knew Hebrew. There's no doubt about it. If a Jew living in the Hijaz heard this verse, his ears would perk up. He would notice the subtlety. Another example, Allah SWT says, That the wife of Ibrahim SAW, she laughed and then we gave her glad tidings of Isaac. Isaac means laughter. And then it says, And then following Isaac, Jacob. The name Isaac means laughter in Hebrew. The name Jacob means to follow or to come after. This is a type of word play that adds to the eloquence and brilliance of the Qur'an. Whoever composed this verse knew Hebrew. Of course we know this is a revelation from Allah SWT. I'll give you another example. There's hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of these types of examples. Allah SWT says about Now Yahya is John, John the Baptist. Peace be upon him, most probably. The Qur'an calls him Yahya, meaning he lives because he was martyred. And the martyrs are alive. They're alive with their Lord, receiving sustenance from their Lord. But the Hebrew name of John is Which is related to This is the only occurrence of this word in the entire Qur'an. And it's describing Yahya, because it actually relates to his historical name. These are subtleties that go over the head of 99% of the Qur'an's readers. The author of the Qur'an is playing with these languages in a masterful way. Now we also believe in miracles. Musa, alaihi salam performed many miracles. And secular historians do not consider miracles when determining what happened in history. That's part of our iman bel ghayb. Because the past is ghayb. We don't have access to it. We can't reproduce these things. Our belief in miracles is not irrational, nor is it falsifiable. It is based upon our belief in Allah SWT. And we can argue rationally that this universe had a designer and a creator. And that this creator is personal. This is why there is something rather than nothing. This is a big philosophical conundrum for these philosophers. Why is there something rather than nothing? This creator who brought this universe into existence from nothing has power over every atom in the universe. Miracles are easy for him. But this is a philosophical argument. This is a theological argument. But from a standpoint of history, the Qur'an's narratives avoid the historical pitfalls of the biblical narratives. And I would say this is also true of the teachings of Jesus, peace be upon him. Our master Isa alayhi salam, when the Qur'an's Christology, its statements about Christ, even though... So the Qur'an's Christology makes more historical sense than what the New Testament even teaches about Jesus, peace be upon him. Even though the Qur'an came 500 years after the New Testament. This is amazing. Most historians today do not believe that the historical Jesus, peace be upon him, 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. And when it comes to the crucifixion, so here the Christian will point out to the Muslim and say, look here the historian says, Isa alayhi salam was crucified but the Qur'an denies it. But here I would say that historians have highly overemphasized the historicity of the crucifixion. I think if they look closely at the evidence again, many of them will affirm at least the historical plausibility that Isa alayhi salam was not crucified. What does the Qur'an say? It says those who differed about it, meaning the crucifixion, were in doubt and shak concerning it. They did not have certain knowledge. They did not have knowledge except that they followed done conjecture. In other words, none of the evidence that Jews and Christians marshal to support Jesus's crucifixion, none of it was written by an eyewitness of this alleged historical event. Every epistle, every gospel, every statement in Christian Jewish and Roman sources without exception came much later and were authored by people who were not there. Paul was the first person in recorded history to claim that Jesus was crucified. This was 20 years later after the alleged event, and he wasn't even there. Paul never met the historical Jesus. He was not a disciple. So these sources are conjectural. They are zunni. Today we know that this is true. The Qur'an is correct. But back when the prophets first ordered these words, Christians and historians believed that the four gospels, that two of them were written by two disciples of Jesus and the other two were written by disciples of disciples. No historian really believes that anymore. The Qur'an is correct. Yet most historians continue to drag their feet on this issue. There's a dogmatism among even secular historians. Don't think these people are objective. Put 50 quote-unquote objective secular historians in a room and give them a topic. You have 50 different responses, 50 different opinions. So allow me to paraphrase. An excellent point made by Dr. Luey Fatouhi. This is what he says. This is a paraphrase. He says, if the prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam is the real author of the Qur'an and 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 conversion? The answer seems to be that the Qur'an 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, the son of Mary, peace be upon them was not crucified. So here's the main point. The Qur'an's version of the flood, the Exodus, the story of Joseph, the teachings of Jesus are more historically accurate than what the Bible says.