 Today I just wanted to mention a few things about the Qur'an inshaAllah that I think any educated reader would find interesting and thought-provoking. For me personally these things are evidence of the Qur'an's divine origin and of course the Qur'an demonstrates its supernatural provenance from multiple standpoints. In other words we can analyze the Qur'an through the lenses of various disciplines and experience its supernatural aspect. But in this khutbah I just want to mention a few basic things inshaAllah that I've mentioned some of these things in the past in various classes. First of all it's I find it very interesting that the Qur'an predicts in both Meccan and Medin and Suwar that it will be and remain forever the gold standard of Arabic literature. It predicts that it will be a sui-generous 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 Qur'an in the Arabic language or in any language arguably. And of course Allah SWT says in the Qur'an, 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 SWT if you speak the truth and if you do not and you will not then fear the fire whose fuel is men and stones prepared for those who reject faith. So this is a clear prophecy and Allah SWT says the Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah SWT rather it is a confirmation of that which was before it and an elaboration or you might say like 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 want to say a few things about the sacred narratives in the Qur'an 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 Qur'an such as the flood story of the flood at the time of Nuh AS the story of Joseph Yusuf AS the story of the exodus from Egypt so the Hijra of Musa AS with Mani Israel I would argue that the Qur'anic versions of these narratives 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 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 in 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 let me give you 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 these problematic historical claims of the biblical authors and this is for me an obvious delil of the Namua of the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi sallam. And Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala says We haqqullahu al haqqa bi kalimatihi wa lo kariha al-mujanimun 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 alayhi sallam. So this number makes almost no historical sense. This actually reminds me of Bani Qureyda that the number of Bani Qureyda 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, Seerah literature in the Quran are vastly different in their authoritative capacities upon the Muslims. Our Ulama have always approached Seerah cautiously. Imam Malik was very, very critical of Ibn Ishaq. The book of Exodus however is a primary Jewish and Christian text. So if 600,000 men of fighting age made exodus according to Exodus 12, in other words 600,000 men between the ages of 15 and 60, then this means that about 3 million people made exodus from Egypt. If we count the women, the children, the elderly, not to mention animals, 3 million 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 million 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 million 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 million. 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 subhanahu wa ta'ala makes to the biblical narratives 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 reveal to Moses saying, journey under the cover of night with my servants. Indeed, you will be pursued. So they're all left in one night. And Pharaoh sent summoners to the cities saying these people are but a small remnant. So according to the Quran, a small group of believers in Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and his messenger Musa A.S. made exodus. How many Sahaba of the Prophet A.S. 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 A.S. plagiarized the Bible, which is the 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 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 A.S., 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. Yet in Genesis, the ruler of Egypt at Joseph's time was called pharaoh. So this is called an anachronism. 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. وقال الملكه إني أرى سبع بخراطن until the end of the ayah. Yet the ruler of Egypt in the time of Musa A.S., who lived it during the 18th or 19th dynasties of the new kingdom, is called Fir'aun, Pharaoh إذهب إلى Fir'auna فإنه تغال. So the Quran in 620 or so CE got it right historically. The book of Genesis in 1000 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 SWT. 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? فَالْيَوْمَ نُنَا جِيْكَ بِبَدَنِكَ لِتَكُونَ لِمَنْ خَلْفَكَ آيَةَ وَإِنَّ كَثِيلًا مِنَ الْنَاسْ عَنْ آيَاتِهِ لَغَافِلُونَ 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 Ramsey II or most of 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 are you at now? It's a true story. There are linguistic subtleties in the Quran that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi sallam could not have easily known. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says, كَافَا يَا عِنْصَادِ ذِكْرُ رَحْمَةِ رَبْبِكَ عَبْدَهُ زَكَرِيَّةَ Now the name Zakariya in Hebrew, Zakharya, means the mention of the Lord. It comes from the word Zikr. Zakara, it's pronounced as 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 is 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, وَمْرَأَتُهُ قَائِمَةٌ فَضَحِكَتْ فَبَشَرْنَاهَ بِإِسْحَاقْ In Surah Hud, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says that Zara, alaihi salam, was standing there and she laughed when the angels told her of her impending pregnancy. Isaac in Hebrew means laughter. ضحكت and يكسخاك are from cognate roots in Arabic and Hebrew respectively. فضحكت فَبَشَرْنَاهَ بِإِسْحَاقْ she laughed so we gave her tidings of laughter or Isaac. And then following Isaac, Jacob وَمِنْ وَرَاءِ إِسْحَاقْ يَاقُوا 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 word play that adds to the eloquence and brilliance of the Qur'an. Whoever composed this verse knew Hebrew and of course Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is the one who composed the verse. Another example, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says about Yahya alaihi salam وَحَنَانَ مِنْ لَدُونَ وَزَكَاتًا وَكَانَ تَقْيَا Now Yahya is John the Baptist, peace be upon him. The Qur'an calls him Yahya, right? Meaning he lives because he was martyred and martyrs are alive. But the Hebrew name for John is Yochanan, which is related to the word حَنَانَ meaning compassion وَحَنَانَ مِنْ لَدُونَ وَزَكَاتًا وَكَانَ تَقْيَا This is the only occurrence of this word in the entire Qur'an. It is a hapox and it's describing Yahya alaihi salam 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 Qur'an's readers. The author of the Qur'an is playing with these languages in a masterful way. This is a master composer. Now what do we learn from the Qur'an about the historical situation in the Hijaz during the time of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi sallam? It's like Mecca around 610-620 CE, the late antique. Allah SWT says So the last ayah says, is it not a sign for them, the mushriqin, that many ulema from the Jews knew him sallallahu alayhi sallam to be true. So this verse gives us a key piece of insight into the actual historical situation in both Mecca and Yathrib. So we call it Yathrib before the Hijrah, but we'll call it Medina. The Qur'an would not make such a statement unless it were true. It would not make such a statement if the Qur'an could just falsify it immediately. In other words, the Qur'an is reminding the Qur'an what they already knew that Jewish scholars in Medina and elsewhere were confirming the Nabua of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi sallam. These were learned Ahlul Kitab, people of Scripture. They recognized him as a prophet before the Hijrah. Ulema of the Bible and biblical tradition had recognized the Prophet sallallahu alayhi sallam as being a true prophet. In the Medieval period when Jewish systematic theology was crystallizing, some of the rabbis said that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi sallam was a goael. Goael means a mujaddid of sorts, a renewer of tawheed. You say they could not just ignore him. And the reason is because the Prophet sallallahu alayhi sallam 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 qullallahu ahad 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, to 99.5% of the world. This was the position of Rabbi Nathaniel al-Fayyumi 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 alayhi sallam, whom the Jews refer to as Avraham Avino, 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 alayhi sallam are those who follow him, as are this prophet and those in the Sahaba in the Ummah of the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi sallam. Imam At-Tirmidhi relates an interesting hadith and Abu Musa says, So, some of the Jews would come and they would sit in the gathering of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi sallam and sneeze on purpose because they hoped that a prophet would say to them, may Allah have mercy upon you. And the Prophet would respond, may Allah guide you and correct your understandings. There were three huge Jewish tribes living 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, 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 Isa alayhi sallam, 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 English. So, go to a strong 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 swt tells us in the Quran, they did not kill Isa alayhi sallam for assurity. God raised him unto himself. Now, of course, we have this verse in the psalm, psalm 20 verse 6, it's attributed to David. This is what it sounds like in Hebrew. So, David writes, whether it's David, Allah, what'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 in ash, which in Aramaic means the son of man. The one who is also prophesized in the book of Daniel chapter seven. 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 50s in the first 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. Well, 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 shak concerning it. They did not have certain knowledge, except they followed then conjecture. So this is amazing. 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 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 first 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 zero 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 four gospels and Paul's letters, the Pauline corpus, all of these sources are conjectural. They are Zanni. Today we know that this is true. The Qur'an is correct. But back when the prophet first uttered these words from Surat An-Nisa, Christians and historians believed that the four gospels were written by two disciples of Jesus, and the other two were written by two disciples of disciples. And all four gospels say Jesus was crucified. No historian really believes these attributions anymore. These books are anonymous, written decades and decades later by highly educated Greek-speaking Gentile Christian converts, not Aramaic-speaking first-century Galilean Jews. As it turns out, the Qur'an is correct. These sources are conjectural. Yet most historians continue to drag their feet on this issue. One of my teachers said it like this. He said if the prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam is the real author of the Qur'an, 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 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, peace be upon him, the son of Mary, peace be upon her, was not crucified. Now there's another verse in the Qur'an that is very often attacked by polemicists as being historically inaccurate. The verse says, we call it the Yahud, uzer ibnullah, and the Jews say, uzer is the son of God, and the Christians say, the Messiah is the son of God. Now, most often, uzer 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 Qur'an 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 with the angel Metatron. This was something well known in Jewish circles. The famous Jewish careride apologist, Abu Yusuf Yaqub al-Kirqisani, mentioned in his book Kitab al-Anwar al-Marakib, 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 third Enoch, which is a text written in the second century, Metatron is explicitly called the lesser Yahweh and the prince of the universe, the sarha olam. God is the melech olam. So this is the son of God. It says that the king crowns and clothes Metatron with the 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. Of course, Metatron sounds like Megatron, but has nothing to do with Megatron. Metatron comes from Meta and Thronos probably, which means behind a throne. So this is an angel that sat on God's throne, shares the throne with God as God's son. The famous 14th century Spanish rabbi, Nisim of Gorona, 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. I'll end with this. So in Mecca, the Quraysh, 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 Harb to ask the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was about Dhu al-Qarnayn. They asked him about Dhu al-Qarnayn. He asked you concerning Dhu al-Qarnayn. I'll 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. So let's look at 84 to 99 about Dhu al-Qarnayn, his three journeys. Dhu al-Qarnayn means the possessor of the two horns. Let's go to Daniel 8.3. Daniel says, And I raised my eyes, and I saw in a vision a ram standing before a river. Zulu al-Qarnayn having two horns. In the Arabic Bible, Daniel 8.4. I saw the ram charging to the west, the north, and the south. Three journeys. No animal could stand against him, and there was no rescue from his power. He did whatever he wanted and became great. Later in chapter 8, Gabriel tells Daniel the answer. Daniel 8.20. He says in the Hebrew language or in the Arabic translation, done by Christians. Indeed, the ram which you saw possessing two horns are the kings of Media in Persia. Now Media in Persia combined to form the Achaemenid Empire, and two 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 Combeisus. Darius himself was likely monotheistic. In royal inscriptions, Ahura Mazda is the only god mentioned by name, end quote. And of course, Kourosh 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 alayhi sallam got the right answer. As it turns out, the Qur'an is correct. May Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala strengthen our iman with knowledge. May Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala make us a means of guidance and not a hindrance to guidance. Alhamdulillah, Rabbalah'alameen. Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Kareem. Ya Allah, we ask you to forgive our mercy upon Sayyid al-Najma Qureshi, the mother of our beloved teachers and colleagues, Dr. Umar and Dr. Jawad Qureshi. Ya 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. Ameen. Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.