- Captioning provided by MUHSEN (www.muhsen.org)
The Qur'an is also remarkably accurate
about historical events
that would have been absolutely impossible
for the Prophet Muhammad,
SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam to have known.
One such example is the fact that
Pharaoh's body will survive.
Yes, the Bible also states
that the Pharaoh of Moses drowned,
but the Qur'an very particularly asserts
that God promised to save his corpse
as an example and sign,
a lesson for later oppressors from being lost at sea.
(air whooshing)
The preservation of mummies
is actually something quite rare,
and the fact that the Prophet Muhammad,
Peace and Blessings be Upon Him, knew and stated
asserting that this particular corpse
is the one that survived.
Considering the knowledge of his day
makes this Qur'anic assertion simply mind boggling.
And the Qur'an mentions many nations
that were ultimately punished by God for their rebellion.
And yet it never states that their bodies would be saved
as an example for later generations to come.
The sole exception in the Qur'an is Pharaoh's corpse
which happens to be the one that remains available
until this very day in the Egyptian Museum of Cairo.
For several centuries before the Prophet Muhammad.
And for nearly 1200 years after him,
knowledge regarding ancient Egyptian civilization
was scarce at best.
It wasn't until the invasions of Napoleon Bonaparte
and subsequently the discovery of a tablet
known as the Rosetta Stone in 1799,
did the discipline of Egyptology emerge
and the hieroglyphics were deciphered
and now we finally had access to reliable source material
on ancient Egyptian civilizations.
France had sent a team of researchers
to explore these new found tombs
among which was the famous Dr Maurice Bucaille.
He then presented his findings in 1976
to the French Institute of forensic medicine
and received multiple national awards
for his ground breaking work in this regard.
Another example from Ancient Egypt
is the fact that Joseph, Peace be Upon Him,'s king
the king of history, was not a Pharaoh.
The Qur'an identifies the ruler of ancient Egypt
as "Pharaoh" 65 times,
but they all are in the story of Moses,
Peace and Blessings be Upon Him.
Not a single time is Egypt's earlier king
in the time of Joseph, Peace be Upon Him,
called a "Pharaoh" in the Qur'an.
This differs from the old Testament, for example
which uses that term "Pharaoh" for both rulers.
And even for earlier kings,
such as the one in the time of Prophet Abraham himself,
Peace and Blessings be Upon Them all.
However, it's since been established
that that term "Pharaoh" has only been coined
in the reign of Thutmose III, about 1500 years BC
during the 18th dynasty of ancient Egypt.
Historians have further discovered
that during the era of Joseph, Peace be Upon Him,
the 15th to 17th dynasties of ancient Egypt
were actually those of an invading force from Palestine
and hence they were called the Hyksos dynasties
which meant literally "Foreign Kings".
What does all of this mean?
Since the term "Pharaoh" means literally "great house"
or "elites bloodline".
And since the Hyksos,
in the time of Joseph, Peace be Upon Him,
were occupiers and not indigenous rulers,
it would have been incorrect to call them pharaohs
had that term even existed.
Circling back to that very careful usage
of the honorific title "Pharaoh",
Dr. Maurice Bucaille says, "I must confess
"that when the Qur'an was first being conveyed to people,
"the ancient Egyptian language
"had been lost from the collective memory of humanity."
He says, "For two centuries
"and remained that way up until the recent 19th century."
"Therefore," he says, "it would be impossible for us to know
"that the Kings of Egypt should be called anything
"other than what they were called in the Bible-Pharaoh.
"And yet the subtle word choice
"of the Qur'an on this matter," he says,
"Is thought provoking."
It's important to note though
that the historical accuracy of the Qur'an
is not just some recent discovery
resultant of archeological excavation.
This was something that was confirmed by
the Jews and Christians during the Prophet's time.
And it astonished them.
The fact that Muhammad, SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam,
could simply speak of personalities across cultures,
like Abraham and Joseph and Jesus and Moses
and Dhul-Qarnayn,
and others like them with such detail was inexplicable.
It was a mystery.
This is why scores of Jews in Medina conceded
and professed that Muhammad must be a true prophet.
Even if some of them thereafter still resisted his message
under the claim that it only applied to the Arabs.
This was due to their inability
to contest its divine origins.
They knew all too well, that it was impossible
for there to be any semblance
of this history in the Arabic language whatsoever.
You know, an uninformed person could argue
that none of this history is remarkable at all.
And it could simply be that Muhammad,
SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam,
was spoonfed from some Bible scholar
or some lost manuscript.
This accusation actually existed
during the Prophet's life, SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam,
but it quickly disappeared.
And most serious Qur'an critics
would refuse to cite it today
due to it being such a weak possibility
that it makes them look desperate.
How so?
Number 1. It is contrary to the historically indisputable
integrity of Muhammad's character.
Number 2. The bulk and veracity
of what the Prophet, SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam, brought
could only be attained over decades of apprenticeship
that would be impossible for him to hide.
To this point, the Qur'an actually says,
"Say [to them O Muhammad], had Allah not willed,
"I would never have been capable
"of reciting such words to you
"for I have lived in your midst for a lifetime.
"Will you not then reason?"
Number 3. As we sampled earlier,
the Qur'an avoided and stepped around
the historical inaccuracies found in the Bible.
So are we saying that the Prophet Muhammad,
SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam,
plagiarized from an earlier scripture
and the only accurate version
from the thousands of conflicting manuscripts?
And did this version exist in seventh century Arabia
of all places?
And in a foreign language that Muhammad,
SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam, secretly learned?
And then was lost forever without a trace?
Finally, even if this bizarre hypothetical were true
it would still only account
for the source of this information
and choose to ignore the miraculousness of the end product.
The Qur'an itself responds to this accusation
about this historical position
being spoonfed from elsewhere.
Allah says:
"And we certainly know [O Muhammad,
SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam,]
that some of them are saying, "He got it
"from another human being."
"[Say to them, O Muhammad],
"This source that you accuse him of taking from
"is a foreign source," It is a different language.
"And yet this Qur'an is one that is clear
and pure and its Arabic."
Captioning provided by MUHSEN (www.muhsen.org)