Tuesday 17 December 2019
Monday 23 September 2019
Saturday 21 September 2019
Wednesday 11 September 2019
Sunday 30 June 2019
Is the woman’s testimony half that of a man in Islam ?
Legal Testimony
In Islam the testimony of men and women weigh equally. We will here give some examples in which their testimonies are equally weighed.
A. Oath of condemnation :
The former Sheikh of Al-Azhar Mahmud Shaltut says : There is a stronger proof for equality in the Qur'an's statement that the woman is just like the man in the type of testimony known as the oath of condemnation [which is An oath in which either the husband or the wife accuses his or her partner of adultery and the only witness is one of them.]
"And as for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves, let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies (i.e. testifies four times) by Allah that he be one of those who speak the truth. And the fifth (testimony) (should be) invoking the Curse of Allah on him if he be one of those who tell a lie (against her). But it shall avert the punishment (of stoning to death) from her, if she bears witness four times by Allah, that he (her husband) is telling a lie. And the fifth (testimony) should be that the Wrath of Allah be upon her if (her husband) speaks the truth". (Surah 24:6 to 9)That is, four repetitions of the oath or testimony by the man concluded by an invocation of his damnation by Allah if he is lying, countered by and invalidated by four repetitions of the woman's counter statement, also followed by an invocation of Allah's wrath upon her if she is lying.
B. Pledge of Islam :
Women doing pledge of Islam with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not need another woman to support her claim... it was equally valid as that of a man. And she did not need her father or husband's permission to do so either.
C. Calling for Islam :
Women are not forbidden from doing dawah (calling for Islam)... she can spread the message of Islam on her own, her word is equally good as that of a male. Nobody questions or doubts her work. When a sahaba (Prophet’s companion) lady gave protection to a non-Muslim captive, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, told everyone to honor her word. A woman's word is equally valid in all situations. If God can accept her word who is man to not take it as equally valid to his own.
Also, other of the believers, Ayesha, may Allah be pleased with her, is considered as one of the four people who quoted more than 2000 hadith (Prophet’s saying). Many other woman reported many hadiths and their word was considered as valid by Muslim scholars.
Major Misunderstanding : Is the woman’s testimony half that of a man in Islam ?:
Despite the equality in Islam, some people either driven by ignorance or envy deny that equality. They refer to a certain verse in the holy Quran that they consider to be a proof that a woman’s testimony is half that of a man.
The Verse says : "And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, tile other can remind her. And the witnesses should not refuse whethey are called on (for evidence)." (Surah 2:282 )
Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut says: The verse does not address the question of the status of the testimony. It rather addresses the methods of verification and establishment of confidence about the individual's rights at the moment of transaction.
The verse actually begins: "O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed period, write it down. Let a scribe write it down in justice between you. Let not the scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him," until it reaches " And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two woman, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her." (Surah 2:282 )
Therefore the situation is one of verification and documentation of rights and not one of judgment. Thus the verse points to the best ways of documentation and verification by which partners in a deal can have maximum security. This therefore does not mean that a single woman's, or a group of woman's testimony without a man's does not count in establishing rights nor is to be taken by a judge since the maximum required in jurisdiction is "evidence".
Thursday 27 June 2019
Oppressed human rights !
Among the most popular terms in our world today is "Human rights ".
And among the most observed facts in the same world, is the fact that
human rights had never been violated through out the long history as
they are now.
Isn't it ridiculous and weird??!
By claiming the protection of human
rights, major crimes are being committed against people and nations.
And under the same claim, human nature is being fought and invaded.
That's why millions of people are wondering who is the human being?
what are his rights?
And the most important and dangerous question is ?
what is the reference we refer to while answering both questions?
This short movie triggers these questions and searches for convincing
answers with you.
Wednesday 19 June 2019
Monday 17 June 2019
Re: Allah created himself from the sweat of a horse ?!!
Question:
What is the degree of authenticity of this hadeeth: "When Allah wanted to create himself, he created horses and made them run and sweat; then He created himself from that sweat" ?
Thank you
Answer:
Praise be to Allah,
Peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, his household and his companions,
To proceed;
In fact, a number of traditionists have collected fabricated ahadith separately in order to distinguish them from other ahadith; among them are Ibn al-Jauzi in Al-Maudu`at (A Great Collection of Fabricated Traditions). He actually begins his book by pointing out to this fabrication.
What is the degree of authenticity of this hadeeth: "When Allah wanted to create himself, he created horses and made them run and sweat; then He created himself from that sweat" ?
Thank you
Answer:
Praise be to Allah,
Peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, his household and his companions,
To proceed;
This hadeeth is fabricated by some heretics and no one should believe in it nor attribute it to the Prophet ﷺ.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar wrote in "the bibliography of Al-Ahwazi" section in Lisan Al-Mizan:
"Ibn Asaker said: He compiled a book of Munkar (denounced) Hadeeth called "Sharh Al-Bayan Fi Ukood Ahl Al-Eman". It included the Hadeeth "When Allah wanted to create himself, he created horses and made them run and sweat; then He created himself from that sweat" and others that shouldn't be narrated or believed.....and this Hadeeth of running horses is forged by some Heretics to defame Ahlul-hadeeth in narrating what's impossible to happen; Some men who have no mind narrated it while it's invalidated by both Shariah and reason."
Allah knows best.
Source: Islamweb Fatwa n. 315553
In fact, a number of traditionists have collected fabricated ahadith separately in order to distinguish them from other ahadith; among them are Ibn al-Jauzi in Al-Maudu`at (A Great Collection of Fabricated Traditions). He actually begins his book by pointing out to this fabrication.
Monday 27 May 2019
‘Religion’ of Atheism
In a rebuttal against radical historical doubters in reference to the alleged non-existence of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, he cites, ‘Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam‘ by Robert Hoyland.
Friday 24 May 2019
THE CANNIBALISM AND BLOODBATHS OF THE CRUSADES (1095-1291)
By: Dr. Abdullah Mohammad Sindi*
(Ph.D. International Relations)
(Ph.D. International Relations)
I. Introduction
It is in these lawless and dangerous times when Prophet Mohammad is
being viciously attacked as a “terrorist” in Western caricatures, and
when Arabs and Muslims are being reviled throughout the West as
“terrorists”, “fanatics”, “fascists”, and “intolerant”, that it becomes
necessary (lest we forget) to recall the past Western Christian
terrorism of the Crusades against the Arabs. This well-documented record
of the cannibalistic and barbaric Crusaders, which is well known in the
Arab world, is rather obscure to most Westerners because it is either
conveniently concealed or deeply buried in some unnoticed specialized
books.
When US President George W. Bush (who speaks to God) said in 2001 - in response to the terrorist attacks of 9-11 - that the US was waging a “Crusade” on Arab and Muslim “terrorism”, he was actually conjuring up the old nightmarish horrors of the Western terrorist Crusades against the Arabs. However, because of widespread angry reactions across the Arab and Muslim worlds to Bush’s use of the word “Crusade”, the American Government was forced to replace it with the word “war”. Regardless, the current American illegal and brutal wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are indeed very similar to the past Western terrorist Crusades. Apparently when it comes to Western dealings with Arabs and Muslims the old saying still stands: the more things change, the more they remain the same.
When US President George W. Bush (who speaks to God) said in 2001 - in response to the terrorist attacks of 9-11 - that the US was waging a “Crusade” on Arab and Muslim “terrorism”, he was actually conjuring up the old nightmarish horrors of the Western terrorist Crusades against the Arabs. However, because of widespread angry reactions across the Arab and Muslim worlds to Bush’s use of the word “Crusade”, the American Government was forced to replace it with the word “war”. Regardless, the current American illegal and brutal wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are indeed very similar to the past Western terrorist Crusades. Apparently when it comes to Western dealings with Arabs and Muslims the old saying still stands: the more things change, the more they remain the same.
II. The Crusades: A General Overview
Of all the religious wars in human history waged by any religion, at any
place, and at any time, none have been bloodier, more genocidal, more
barbaric, and more protracted than the 200-year "holy wars" by the
Western Crusades against the Arabs and Islam. The Western Crusaders
horrifically soaked Asia Minor and the Eastern Arab Mediterranean coast
with Arab blood (both Muslim and Jewish). The objective of the Crusades
was simple, to destroy the Arabs (whether Muslim or Jew) in the Holy
Land of Palestine and its environs "…on the ground that they had no
right to inhabit their part of the earth, while for a Christian the
whole world is his country." [1]
Unlike Muslims (Arab and non-Arab) who have always tolerated Christians and Jews (Arab and non-Arab), married into them, and lived and worked with them side by side in peace as "People of the Book" in all Arab and Muslim lands as well as in old Arab Andalusia (Spain and Portugal), the Christian West has had no desire to coexist with Islam and the Arabs. Also, unlike Muslims who revere Moses and Jesus as God’s prophets, most Christians and Jews in the “tolerant” West have no respect for Prophet Mohammad and are rudely contemptuous of him and Islam. In fact ever since its birth and its subsequent widespread expansion, Islam has been looked upon in the West as a mortal danger, both moral and military, to be strongly opposed or even destroyed. In his classic exposé of Christian violence worldwide, A History of Christianity, the Western Christian scholar Paul Johnson rejects the Western propaganda about Islam’s “violent” expansion by stating that: "The success of Islam sprang essentially from the failure of Christian theologians to solve the problem of the Trinity and Christ's nature." [2]
Nevertheless, the Western Crusades' insane bloodbaths against the Arabs were triggered by the decisive defeat of the Byzantine army in 1071 at the hands of the Turkish Seljuk (Abbasid) army. Fearing that all of Asia Minor would be quickly overrun by the Abbasids, the defeated Byzantine emperor, Alexius I, quickly appealed to his Christian rivals and opponents in Western Europe, i.e., Pope Urban II and his other "fellow" Christian rulers, to come to the aid of Constantinople by undertaking a "pilgrimage" or Crusade to "free" Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine from Arab and Muslim rule.
Emperor Alexius' appeal provided Pope Urban II with his lifetime opportunity to gain more recognition and power for the papal authority and for its role in legitimizing the temporal actions of the West European kings. Presiding over an urgent Church Council meeting, at Piacenza, Italy, in March 1095, Pope Urban II - with the Byzantine ambassador sitting next to him - called upon all the Western European followers of Christ to do "God's will” by carrying arms to "liberate the Holy Land" and cleanse it from the desecration of the Arab and Muslim "infidels." The Pope's call to fight the Arabs was ironic because, as scholar Francis Peters observed "God may indeed have wished it, but there is certainly no evidence that the Christians of Jerusalem did, or that anything extraordinary was occurring to pilgrims there to prompt such a response at that moment in history." [3] Although Christian and Jewish pilgrims (Arab and non-Arab) were burdened by taxes; they were never barred or even restricted from their religious shrines in Jerusalem either by Muslim Arab or Turkish authorities, even during the few severe sporadic civil disturbances in Palestine. In fact, Arabs (Muslims, Jews, and Christians) as well as non-Arabs (also Muslims, Jews, and Christians) have all lived together in Palestine in peace under Islamic rule since the dawn of Islam.
In reality, however, the veritable rationale behind launching the Crusades went beyond religious impulses, which were mostly the concern of the common people. Western kings, knights, feudal lords, and merchants were driven primarily by political, military, and commercial ambitions as well as by the prospects of new lands and riches that would accompany the establishment of European colonies in the Arab world.
Nevertheless, to start a new general European massive movement, like the Crusades, the leadership of a central figure was needed. Pope Urban II was the only central figure at the time in the entire West with an authority that transcended all of Western Europe's national boundaries. On November 25, 1095, Pope Urban II delivered in Clermont, France, what was perhaps the single most effective speech in Western history - one that has influenced the West up to the present time. Not only did the Pope appeal to the Western masses through religious motives, but he also used what came to be known as the typical Western ideological argument in support of a colonialist and imperialist policy that eventually led Europe in later generations to brutally colonize the entire non-European world. In this historic speech, Pope Urban II reminded the Europeans that their lands were suffering from widespread economic problems:
"For this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth, and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war, and that very many among you perish in civil strife." [4]
The Pope then quickly pointed out that the Arab land of Palestine to which they would be going for their Crusade "floweth with milk and honey ... like another paradise of delights." [5] Pope Urban II then passionately exhorted the faithful Westerners: "Set out on the road to the Holy Sepulcher, take that land from the wicked people and make it your own!" [6] After the Pope ended his fiery speech, the entire large European crowd responded jubilantly with a loud roar: "Dieu le veult!" (God wills it!).
In fact, the Western Crusaders were the first great wave of European colonialism since the fall of the Roman Empire in 476. The Crusades took the form of a series of brutal military invasions in the name of "Christianity" to the heart of Arab and Muslim lands in order to brutally colonize Arab Palestine and kill its people. There were at least nine major Western Crusades and many smaller ones launched against the Arabs between 1095 and 1290: The First (1095-1099); the Second (1147-1149); the Third (1189-1192); the Fourth (1198-1204); the Children's Crusade (1212); the Fifth (1217-1221); the Sixth (1228-1229); the Seventh (1248-1254); the Eighth (1270); and the Ninth (1290). Other ill-starred Western military expeditions against the Arabs continued up to the 15th century. Actually, Europe's hatred and fear of Arab and Muslim power were so intense that the idea of the Crusade persisted well into the 17th century, and the conviction that war might be just and legitimate has since become more deeply engraved in the conscience of the West.
Unlike Muslims (Arab and non-Arab) who have always tolerated Christians and Jews (Arab and non-Arab), married into them, and lived and worked with them side by side in peace as "People of the Book" in all Arab and Muslim lands as well as in old Arab Andalusia (Spain and Portugal), the Christian West has had no desire to coexist with Islam and the Arabs. Also, unlike Muslims who revere Moses and Jesus as God’s prophets, most Christians and Jews in the “tolerant” West have no respect for Prophet Mohammad and are rudely contemptuous of him and Islam. In fact ever since its birth and its subsequent widespread expansion, Islam has been looked upon in the West as a mortal danger, both moral and military, to be strongly opposed or even destroyed. In his classic exposé of Christian violence worldwide, A History of Christianity, the Western Christian scholar Paul Johnson rejects the Western propaganda about Islam’s “violent” expansion by stating that: "The success of Islam sprang essentially from the failure of Christian theologians to solve the problem of the Trinity and Christ's nature." [2]
Nevertheless, the Western Crusades' insane bloodbaths against the Arabs were triggered by the decisive defeat of the Byzantine army in 1071 at the hands of the Turkish Seljuk (Abbasid) army. Fearing that all of Asia Minor would be quickly overrun by the Abbasids, the defeated Byzantine emperor, Alexius I, quickly appealed to his Christian rivals and opponents in Western Europe, i.e., Pope Urban II and his other "fellow" Christian rulers, to come to the aid of Constantinople by undertaking a "pilgrimage" or Crusade to "free" Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine from Arab and Muslim rule.
Emperor Alexius' appeal provided Pope Urban II with his lifetime opportunity to gain more recognition and power for the papal authority and for its role in legitimizing the temporal actions of the West European kings. Presiding over an urgent Church Council meeting, at Piacenza, Italy, in March 1095, Pope Urban II - with the Byzantine ambassador sitting next to him - called upon all the Western European followers of Christ to do "God's will” by carrying arms to "liberate the Holy Land" and cleanse it from the desecration of the Arab and Muslim "infidels." The Pope's call to fight the Arabs was ironic because, as scholar Francis Peters observed "God may indeed have wished it, but there is certainly no evidence that the Christians of Jerusalem did, or that anything extraordinary was occurring to pilgrims there to prompt such a response at that moment in history." [3] Although Christian and Jewish pilgrims (Arab and non-Arab) were burdened by taxes; they were never barred or even restricted from their religious shrines in Jerusalem either by Muslim Arab or Turkish authorities, even during the few severe sporadic civil disturbances in Palestine. In fact, Arabs (Muslims, Jews, and Christians) as well as non-Arabs (also Muslims, Jews, and Christians) have all lived together in Palestine in peace under Islamic rule since the dawn of Islam.
In reality, however, the veritable rationale behind launching the Crusades went beyond religious impulses, which were mostly the concern of the common people. Western kings, knights, feudal lords, and merchants were driven primarily by political, military, and commercial ambitions as well as by the prospects of new lands and riches that would accompany the establishment of European colonies in the Arab world.
Nevertheless, to start a new general European massive movement, like the Crusades, the leadership of a central figure was needed. Pope Urban II was the only central figure at the time in the entire West with an authority that transcended all of Western Europe's national boundaries. On November 25, 1095, Pope Urban II delivered in Clermont, France, what was perhaps the single most effective speech in Western history - one that has influenced the West up to the present time. Not only did the Pope appeal to the Western masses through religious motives, but he also used what came to be known as the typical Western ideological argument in support of a colonialist and imperialist policy that eventually led Europe in later generations to brutally colonize the entire non-European world. In this historic speech, Pope Urban II reminded the Europeans that their lands were suffering from widespread economic problems:
"For this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth, and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war, and that very many among you perish in civil strife." [4]
The Pope then quickly pointed out that the Arab land of Palestine to which they would be going for their Crusade "floweth with milk and honey ... like another paradise of delights." [5] Pope Urban II then passionately exhorted the faithful Westerners: "Set out on the road to the Holy Sepulcher, take that land from the wicked people and make it your own!" [6] After the Pope ended his fiery speech, the entire large European crowd responded jubilantly with a loud roar: "Dieu le veult!" (God wills it!).
In fact, the Western Crusaders were the first great wave of European colonialism since the fall of the Roman Empire in 476. The Crusades took the form of a series of brutal military invasions in the name of "Christianity" to the heart of Arab and Muslim lands in order to brutally colonize Arab Palestine and kill its people. There were at least nine major Western Crusades and many smaller ones launched against the Arabs between 1095 and 1290: The First (1095-1099); the Second (1147-1149); the Third (1189-1192); the Fourth (1198-1204); the Children's Crusade (1212); the Fifth (1217-1221); the Sixth (1228-1229); the Seventh (1248-1254); the Eighth (1270); and the Ninth (1290). Other ill-starred Western military expeditions against the Arabs continued up to the 15th century. Actually, Europe's hatred and fear of Arab and Muslim power were so intense that the idea of the Crusade persisted well into the 17th century, and the conviction that war might be just and legitimate has since become more deeply engraved in the conscience of the West.
Thursday 16 May 2019
Does Islam explain reality better than Atheism?
The debate video is now up of the debate held at Oxford comparing the
claims of Islam and the claims of Atheism, and assessing which better
explains reality.
The debate was hosted by Oxford University on 6th May 2019.
Atheist’s denial of God meant that they couldn’t provide an ultimate explanation of reality without falling into self-contradictions.
The speakers were Mohammed Hijab , Abdullah al Andalusi debating against Atheist speakers, Alex O’Connor, an international speaker and popular YouTuber “Cosmic Skeptic”, and writer for the New Humanist Journal, and Psychiatrist, Dr Colin Brewer.
The debate was hosted by Oxford University on 6th May 2019.
Atheist’s denial of God meant that they couldn’t provide an ultimate explanation of reality without falling into self-contradictions.
The speakers were Mohammed Hijab , Abdullah al Andalusi debating against Atheist speakers, Alex O’Connor, an international speaker and popular YouTuber “Cosmic Skeptic”, and writer for the New Humanist Journal, and Psychiatrist, Dr Colin Brewer.
Saturday 11 May 2019
Atheist Myth: “No One Has Ever Killed in the Name of Atheism”
Even if we were to ignore the obvious crimes against humanity that
atheistic communists have committed, atheism would be condemned simply
by examining the devastation of the French Revolution.
Another link related to Atheism (In case the Atheists attack your religion).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism
https://evangelicalsnow.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/no-one-kills-in-the-name-of-atheism/
http://www.thomism.org/atheism/atheist_murderers.html
https://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/02/08/atheism-government-and-killing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_victims_of_Soviet_persecutions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Eastern_Bloc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutions_of_the_Catholic_Church_and_Pius_XII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims#USSR
https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_violence
Source
Several points:
1. This is a silly, if not also a thoroughly common, argument. If the negative actions of any and all theists reflect badly upon all theists, all forms of religion and all religionists then it follows that the negative actions of any and all atheists reflect badly upon all atheists, all forms of irreligion and all irreligionists. This logical fallacy is called “Guilt by Association.”
2. Communism is definitely a religion as the Catholic Church has claimed for more than a century. It’s an atheistic religion. It’s a religion created by atheists, celebrated by atheists and defended by atheists. It comes with its own prophets and prophecies, sacred items, soteriology, hierotopy, pseudo-spirituality, pseudo-morality, pilgrimages, temples, theophany, soteriology, cultic practices, sacred texts and exegetical commentary.
3. Even if we were to ignore the obvious crimes against humanity that atheists involved in the global communist movement in the past century have committed, we can condemn all atheists and atheism simply by examining the one million dead at the hands of “rational,” “enlightened” atheist French Revolutionaries. Historians call the Vendean Martyrs in March 1793 the modern-era’s first genocide. The atheist French Revolutionary Army ordered the conscription of 300,000 citizens of Vendée. Having already had all of their churches suppressed and their bishops slaughtered, this infuriated the populace which rose up in “The Catholic Army.” In response, the Revolutionary Army massacred 6,000 Vendée prisoners, many of them women, children and the elderly, after the battle of Savenay. In addition, 3,000 Vendée women were drowned at Pont-au-Baux. In addition, 5,000 Vendée priests, elderly, women and children were tied in groups in barges and drowned in the Loire River at Nantes. By July, AD 1796, nearly 500,000 Vendean Catholics were killed. All of these theists were killed at the hands of atheists. Considering this was the first cry of “public” atheism—as opposed to individuals who simply didn’t believe in God throughout Christian history—atheists have yet to explain why “compassionate” and “rational” atheists’ hands are so murderously bloody.
4. If the above statement were true, it might make the atheist case unassailable. However, anyone who has read a newspaper at any time between the 17th and 21st centuries knows this to be untrue. This is one of the atheists’ fondest lies. I’m not sure that the person about to be executed by a Marxist or Maoist atheist is assuaged in the knowledge that his evil, merciless executioner isn’t killing him because he’s an atheist but rather because he believes in an atheist philosophy and only coincidently doesn’t believe in God. Multiply this by all 152 million dead at the hands of atheists in the 20th and 21st century—a carnage which has yet to abate—makes the above claim perfectly worthless. In addition, we have more than sufficient proof that atheists killed in the name of atheism as in the case of the Soviet Union’s Society of the Militant Godless, Mao Zedong’s Red Guard, the Enlightenment’s Reign of Terror, Abimael Guzmán’s Shining Path, atheist Napoleon’s wars and Plutarco Elias Calles democide of Mexican Catholics during the Cristero Wars.
5. Atheists who make nonsensical, ahistorical and misological claims such as this one, prove they’ve never truly examined their own community’s behavior under the microscope as they enjoy doing with us. Consider instead those who have died in the name of atheistic philosophies such as marxism, socialism, communism, maoism, Nazism, fascism, totalitarianism, libertarianism, monopolistic capitalism, robber barronism, industrialization, secularism, jingoism, anarchism, social darwinism, eugenics, malthusianism, messianic scientism, nihilism, anti-humanist terrorism, individualism, narcissism, physicalism, materialism, consumerism, modernism, postmodernism, nietzscheism, Marquis de Sade’s sadism, (i.e., sadistic murders) moral relativism, hedonism, radical feminism, (i.e., abortions, infanticide, suicide, false claims of rape) radical environmentalism, (i.e., ecological terrorism) Anton LaVey’s satanism, (i.e., ritual murders) and the “Law of Attraction.” (i.e., the deaths, including suicides, caused by Peter Popoff, Sylvia Browne and other gurus”) All of these atheistic philosophies have resulted in the deaths of countless hundreds of millions of human beings. In comparison, the deaths caused by religion seem almost quaint and insignificant.
6. But even if we were to never mention any of the dark secret murders of the atheist community ever again, an important question remains begging to be begged: Why is it that no one has ever been helped anyone in the name of atheism? There has never been anyone who has ever given a crust of bread or a drop of water or a stitch of clothing to anyone in the name of atheism. (Richard Dawkins admits in his The God Delusion that it’s “easier to herd cats than to get atheists to cooperate each other.” This goes a long way in explaining why atheists refuse to cooperate with each other and form charitable concerns. Christians easily cooperate with each other otherwise hospitals and schools would never get built.)
If this is incorrect, where are the army of atheists humanitarian traipsing about Africa and Asia giving hope to the poor and disadvantaged? Certainly none of the famous atheist polemicists have ever done so. Christopher Hitchens was asked on multiply occasions if he or other atheists who similarly had a poor opinion of St. Mother Teresa have actually gone to India and rolled up their sleeves to bathe lepers. I’ve asked many atheists including P.Z. Myers, Patricia Churchland and Christopher Hitchens and none have responded in the positive. Madalyn O’Hair never mentioned having done so. Mao and Stalin were busy killing tens of millions of their compatriots by engineering famines in their respective countries so it’s hard to imagine they also helped poor people. When I volunteered at Mother Teresa’s street clinics in Calcutta, I never met an atheist doing the same work but I routinely met Catholics doing so.
Regardless of their obviously false claim that atheists have dutifully avoided murdering anyone, it’s a rather worthless commentary if a community has done nothing positive for humanity. Most humans have never killed anyone but this hardly makes those most people saints or Nobel Peace Prize material. (Mother Teresa was both.) It would be a sad epigraph on an atheist’s tombstone if it read, “He never helped a single individual, but at least he never killed anyone except as a result of his indifference and apathy.” Most prison convicts and related sociopaths have similarly not killed anyone but the fact that they’re in prison proves they’ve disregarded the rights and needs of others. Only atheists put humanitarians in prison as in the case of the Soviet Union and Post-Revolutionary China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia and Viêt Nam.
7. Further, the fact that many atheists are glib or gratified at the horror of mass murders committed by their fellow atheists goes a long way in proving they are mere contrarians. One can’t glibly disregard the suffering of others while ignoring the fact that others (i.e., Catholics) are working towards alleviating suffering in the world and throughout it all, lying about their good works—that’s requires a special kind of evil which is hopefully extremely rare in this world.
These philosophies and the horrors they generated aside, fundamentalist atheists should rather worry about the kind of people they hope to attract to their community when they mock religion. Truly compassionate, generous, gentle, kind and forgiving people won’t be attracted to a group that mocks others. I’ve been a Catholic for a long time and I have never heard the word “atheism” or “atheist” ever mentioned in church. Having been an atheist prior to reverting to Catholicism, I can assure you that that community is obsessed by the Church finding themselves incapable, or unwilling, of discussing anything other than the most recent reason for hating us. They never talk about the wonders and glories of atheism or the joy that it engenders in their hearts. They never raise virtuous atheists as models for themselves and their children. They never organize themselves to help the unfortunate. It’s because they can’t and simply don’t want to.
Frankly, after a couple of years, I simply couldn’t take it anymore. I left atheism behind because it was snarky, sniping and moribund reveling in its bitterness and denial. It’s amazing anyone psychologically and spiritually survives the wholesale rejection of hope, logic and reality as they cherry pick data to uphold their opinions. Or, maybe, it’s because God has a special place in His heart for atheists. As G.K. Chesterton points out, God even sustains atheists in their disbelief.
1. This is a silly, if not also a thoroughly common, argument. If the negative actions of any and all theists reflect badly upon all theists, all forms of religion and all religionists then it follows that the negative actions of any and all atheists reflect badly upon all atheists, all forms of irreligion and all irreligionists. This logical fallacy is called “Guilt by Association.”
2. Communism is definitely a religion as the Catholic Church has claimed for more than a century. It’s an atheistic religion. It’s a religion created by atheists, celebrated by atheists and defended by atheists. It comes with its own prophets and prophecies, sacred items, soteriology, hierotopy, pseudo-spirituality, pseudo-morality, pilgrimages, temples, theophany, soteriology, cultic practices, sacred texts and exegetical commentary.
3. Even if we were to ignore the obvious crimes against humanity that atheists involved in the global communist movement in the past century have committed, we can condemn all atheists and atheism simply by examining the one million dead at the hands of “rational,” “enlightened” atheist French Revolutionaries. Historians call the Vendean Martyrs in March 1793 the modern-era’s first genocide. The atheist French Revolutionary Army ordered the conscription of 300,000 citizens of Vendée. Having already had all of their churches suppressed and their bishops slaughtered, this infuriated the populace which rose up in “The Catholic Army.” In response, the Revolutionary Army massacred 6,000 Vendée prisoners, many of them women, children and the elderly, after the battle of Savenay. In addition, 3,000 Vendée women were drowned at Pont-au-Baux. In addition, 5,000 Vendée priests, elderly, women and children were tied in groups in barges and drowned in the Loire River at Nantes. By July, AD 1796, nearly 500,000 Vendean Catholics were killed. All of these theists were killed at the hands of atheists. Considering this was the first cry of “public” atheism—as opposed to individuals who simply didn’t believe in God throughout Christian history—atheists have yet to explain why “compassionate” and “rational” atheists’ hands are so murderously bloody.
4. If the above statement were true, it might make the atheist case unassailable. However, anyone who has read a newspaper at any time between the 17th and 21st centuries knows this to be untrue. This is one of the atheists’ fondest lies. I’m not sure that the person about to be executed by a Marxist or Maoist atheist is assuaged in the knowledge that his evil, merciless executioner isn’t killing him because he’s an atheist but rather because he believes in an atheist philosophy and only coincidently doesn’t believe in God. Multiply this by all 152 million dead at the hands of atheists in the 20th and 21st century—a carnage which has yet to abate—makes the above claim perfectly worthless. In addition, we have more than sufficient proof that atheists killed in the name of atheism as in the case of the Soviet Union’s Society of the Militant Godless, Mao Zedong’s Red Guard, the Enlightenment’s Reign of Terror, Abimael Guzmán’s Shining Path, atheist Napoleon’s wars and Plutarco Elias Calles democide of Mexican Catholics during the Cristero Wars.
5. Atheists who make nonsensical, ahistorical and misological claims such as this one, prove they’ve never truly examined their own community’s behavior under the microscope as they enjoy doing with us. Consider instead those who have died in the name of atheistic philosophies such as marxism, socialism, communism, maoism, Nazism, fascism, totalitarianism, libertarianism, monopolistic capitalism, robber barronism, industrialization, secularism, jingoism, anarchism, social darwinism, eugenics, malthusianism, messianic scientism, nihilism, anti-humanist terrorism, individualism, narcissism, physicalism, materialism, consumerism, modernism, postmodernism, nietzscheism, Marquis de Sade’s sadism, (i.e., sadistic murders) moral relativism, hedonism, radical feminism, (i.e., abortions, infanticide, suicide, false claims of rape) radical environmentalism, (i.e., ecological terrorism) Anton LaVey’s satanism, (i.e., ritual murders) and the “Law of Attraction.” (i.e., the deaths, including suicides, caused by Peter Popoff, Sylvia Browne and other gurus”) All of these atheistic philosophies have resulted in the deaths of countless hundreds of millions of human beings. In comparison, the deaths caused by religion seem almost quaint and insignificant.
6. But even if we were to never mention any of the dark secret murders of the atheist community ever again, an important question remains begging to be begged: Why is it that no one has ever been helped anyone in the name of atheism? There has never been anyone who has ever given a crust of bread or a drop of water or a stitch of clothing to anyone in the name of atheism. (Richard Dawkins admits in his The God Delusion that it’s “easier to herd cats than to get atheists to cooperate each other.” This goes a long way in explaining why atheists refuse to cooperate with each other and form charitable concerns. Christians easily cooperate with each other otherwise hospitals and schools would never get built.)
If this is incorrect, where are the army of atheists humanitarian traipsing about Africa and Asia giving hope to the poor and disadvantaged? Certainly none of the famous atheist polemicists have ever done so. Christopher Hitchens was asked on multiply occasions if he or other atheists who similarly had a poor opinion of St. Mother Teresa have actually gone to India and rolled up their sleeves to bathe lepers. I’ve asked many atheists including P.Z. Myers, Patricia Churchland and Christopher Hitchens and none have responded in the positive. Madalyn O’Hair never mentioned having done so. Mao and Stalin were busy killing tens of millions of their compatriots by engineering famines in their respective countries so it’s hard to imagine they also helped poor people. When I volunteered at Mother Teresa’s street clinics in Calcutta, I never met an atheist doing the same work but I routinely met Catholics doing so.
Regardless of their obviously false claim that atheists have dutifully avoided murdering anyone, it’s a rather worthless commentary if a community has done nothing positive for humanity. Most humans have never killed anyone but this hardly makes those most people saints or Nobel Peace Prize material. (Mother Teresa was both.) It would be a sad epigraph on an atheist’s tombstone if it read, “He never helped a single individual, but at least he never killed anyone except as a result of his indifference and apathy.” Most prison convicts and related sociopaths have similarly not killed anyone but the fact that they’re in prison proves they’ve disregarded the rights and needs of others. Only atheists put humanitarians in prison as in the case of the Soviet Union and Post-Revolutionary China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia and Viêt Nam.
7. Further, the fact that many atheists are glib or gratified at the horror of mass murders committed by their fellow atheists goes a long way in proving they are mere contrarians. One can’t glibly disregard the suffering of others while ignoring the fact that others (i.e., Catholics) are working towards alleviating suffering in the world and throughout it all, lying about their good works—that’s requires a special kind of evil which is hopefully extremely rare in this world.
These philosophies and the horrors they generated aside, fundamentalist atheists should rather worry about the kind of people they hope to attract to their community when they mock religion. Truly compassionate, generous, gentle, kind and forgiving people won’t be attracted to a group that mocks others. I’ve been a Catholic for a long time and I have never heard the word “atheism” or “atheist” ever mentioned in church. Having been an atheist prior to reverting to Catholicism, I can assure you that that community is obsessed by the Church finding themselves incapable, or unwilling, of discussing anything other than the most recent reason for hating us. They never talk about the wonders and glories of atheism or the joy that it engenders in their hearts. They never raise virtuous atheists as models for themselves and their children. They never organize themselves to help the unfortunate. It’s because they can’t and simply don’t want to.
Frankly, after a couple of years, I simply couldn’t take it anymore. I left atheism behind because it was snarky, sniping and moribund reveling in its bitterness and denial. It’s amazing anyone psychologically and spiritually survives the wholesale rejection of hope, logic and reality as they cherry pick data to uphold their opinions. Or, maybe, it’s because God has a special place in His heart for atheists. As G.K. Chesterton points out, God even sustains atheists in their disbelief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism
https://evangelicalsnow.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/no-one-kills-in-the-name-of-atheism/
http://www.thomism.org/atheism/atheist_murderers.html
https://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/02/08/atheism-government-and-killing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_victims_of_Soviet_persecutions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Eastern_Bloc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutions_of_the_Catholic_Church_and_Pius_XII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims#USSR
https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_violence
Source
Saturday 20 April 2019
Top historian confirms the historical reliability of the Muslim traditions.
A top expert on Arabic and Islamic history confirms the historical
reliability of the Muslim dating of the Quran and events in early
Islamic history. He cites some fascinating and extremely early
historical evidence.
Hugh Nigel Kennedy is a British medieval historian and academic. He specialises in the history of the early Islamic Middle East. From 1997 to 2007, he was Professor of Middle Eastern History at the University of St Andrews. Since 2007, he has been Professor of Arabic at SOAS, University of London.
Hugh Nigel Kennedy is a British medieval historian and academic. He specialises in the history of the early Islamic Middle East. From 1997 to 2007, he was Professor of Middle Eastern History at the University of St Andrews. Since 2007, he has been Professor of Arabic at SOAS, University of London.
Tuesday 2 April 2019
Tolerance of Muslims
Prophet Muhammad was reported to have said,
“He who unfairly treats a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with Muslims, or undermines his rights, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his consent; then I am his opponent on the Day of Judgment” (Abu Dawud and Al-Bayhaqi).
Not only was this the norm of the Prophet on the issue, but the Rightly Guided Caliphs also practiced His footsteps.
Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, the First Caliph, wrote to the people of Najran:
'In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. This is the written statement of God's slave Abu Bakr, the successor of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God. He affirms for you the rights of a protected neighbor, in yourselves, your lands, your religious community, your wealth, retainers, and servants, those of you who are present or abroad, your bishops and monks, and monasteries, and all that you own, be it great or small. You shall not be deprived of any of it, and shall have full control over it.'
Gustav Le Bon affirmed this historical fact:
"The Arabs could have easily been blinded by their first conquests, and committed the injustices that are usually committed by conquerors. They could have mistreated their defeated opponents or forced them to embrace their religion, which they wished to spread all over the world. But the Arabs avoided that. The early caliphs, who had a political genius that was rare in proponents of new religion, realized that religions and systems are not imposed by force. So they treated the people of Syria, Egypt, Spain, and every country they took over with great kindness, as we have seen. They left their laws, regulations, and beliefs intact and only imposed on them the jizya, which was paltry when compared to what they had been paying in taxes previously, in exchange for maintaining their security. The truth is that nations had never known conquerors more tolerant than the Muslims, or a religion more tolerant than Islam." (Lebon, G, The Civilization Of The Arabs, p. 605)
Reinhart Dozy, the Dutch historian, wrote:
“He who unfairly treats a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with Muslims, or undermines his rights, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his consent; then I am his opponent on the Day of Judgment” (Abu Dawud and Al-Bayhaqi).
Not only was this the norm of the Prophet on the issue, but the Rightly Guided Caliphs also practiced His footsteps.
Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, the First Caliph, wrote to the people of Najran:
'In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. This is the written statement of God's slave Abu Bakr, the successor of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God. He affirms for you the rights of a protected neighbor, in yourselves, your lands, your religious community, your wealth, retainers, and servants, those of you who are present or abroad, your bishops and monks, and monasteries, and all that you own, be it great or small. You shall not be deprived of any of it, and shall have full control over it.'
Gustav Le Bon affirmed this historical fact:
"The Arabs could have easily been blinded by their first conquests, and committed the injustices that are usually committed by conquerors. They could have mistreated their defeated opponents or forced them to embrace their religion, which they wished to spread all over the world. But the Arabs avoided that. The early caliphs, who had a political genius that was rare in proponents of new religion, realized that religions and systems are not imposed by force. So they treated the people of Syria, Egypt, Spain, and every country they took over with great kindness, as we have seen. They left their laws, regulations, and beliefs intact and only imposed on them the jizya, which was paltry when compared to what they had been paying in taxes previously, in exchange for maintaining their security. The truth is that nations had never known conquerors more tolerant than the Muslims, or a religion more tolerant than Islam." (Lebon, G, The Civilization Of The Arabs, p. 605)
Reinhart Dozy, the Dutch historian, wrote:
"The Berbers did not have a sacred book. So, It clearly follows that the tolerance was going to a great extent possible, maybe, further than Muhammad had wanted.
In addition the Muslim domination was a relief and a blessing, especially for Christians. Christians in the East belonged mostly to sects that the Officials of Constantinople oppressed and persecuted while Islam, naturally, gave them full freedom to understand Christianity as they saw fit and gave equal protection to all old and new sects.
If we add that the heavy taxes they had to pay to the Roman emperor were not demanded by the new government and that the capitation tax that was posed, was moderate; it is not surprising that they gave much preference to the domination of Muslims over that of the Romans and that they vigorously support the Arabs in their conquests far from working against them."
Saturday 30 March 2019
Humane treatment of dogs by Muslims -Philip Mansel
In his book, "Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924", we read an interesting paragraph.:
Philip Mansel
Tuesday 19 March 2019
Monday 18 March 2019
Why some people are disabled ?
Question
Why has Allah created mentally Disabled people ?
Answer
Praise be to Allaah. One of the basic principles of Islam is to believe in the wisdom of the Lord in what He creates and commands, and in what He wills and decrees, in the sense that He does not create anything in vain and He does not decree anything in which there is not some benefit for His slaves. So everything that exists is His will and decree.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Allaah is the Creator of all things” [al-Ra’d 13:16]
His perfect wisdom decrees that He creates opposites, so He has created angels and devils, night and day, purity and impurity, good and ugly, and He has created good and evil. He created His slaves with differences in their bodies and minds, and in their strengths. He has made some rich and some poor, some healthy and some sickly, some wise and some foolish. By His wisdom, He tests them, and He tests some by means of others, to show who will be grateful and who will be ungrateful.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meanings): “Verily, We have created man from Nutfah (drops) of mixed semen (sexual discharge of man and woman), in order to try him, so We made him hearer and seer. Verily, We showed him the way, whether he be grateful or ungrateful” [al-Insaan 76:2]
“Who has created death and life that He may test you which of you is best in deed” [al-Mulk 67:2]
When the sound believer sees disabled people, he recognizes the blessing that Allaah has bestowed upon him, so he gives thanks for His blessing, and He asks Him for good health. He knows that Allaah is Able to do all things. People are incapable of comprehending Allaah’s wisdom. He cannot be questioned as to what He does , while they will be questioned. Glorified and exalted be He. Whatever you understand of His wisdom, believe in it, and whatever you cannot understand, say, “Allaah knows best and is most wise, and we know nothing except that which You have taught us, and He is the All-Knowing, Most Wise.”
Source
Why has Allah created mentally Disabled people ?
Answer
Praise be to Allaah. One of the basic principles of Islam is to believe in the wisdom of the Lord in what He creates and commands, and in what He wills and decrees, in the sense that He does not create anything in vain and He does not decree anything in which there is not some benefit for His slaves. So everything that exists is His will and decree.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Allaah is the Creator of all things” [al-Ra’d 13:16]
His perfect wisdom decrees that He creates opposites, so He has created angels and devils, night and day, purity and impurity, good and ugly, and He has created good and evil. He created His slaves with differences in their bodies and minds, and in their strengths. He has made some rich and some poor, some healthy and some sickly, some wise and some foolish. By His wisdom, He tests them, and He tests some by means of others, to show who will be grateful and who will be ungrateful.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meanings): “Verily, We have created man from Nutfah (drops) of mixed semen (sexual discharge of man and woman), in order to try him, so We made him hearer and seer. Verily, We showed him the way, whether he be grateful or ungrateful” [al-Insaan 76:2]
“Who has created death and life that He may test you which of you is best in deed” [al-Mulk 67:2]
When the sound believer sees disabled people, he recognizes the blessing that Allaah has bestowed upon him, so he gives thanks for His blessing, and He asks Him for good health. He knows that Allaah is Able to do all things. People are incapable of comprehending Allaah’s wisdom. He cannot be questioned as to what He does , while they will be questioned. Glorified and exalted be He. Whatever you understand of His wisdom, believe in it, and whatever you cannot understand, say, “Allaah knows best and is most wise, and we know nothing except that which You have taught us, and He is the All-Knowing, Most Wise.”
Source
Islam on Textual Corruption of The Christian and Jewish Scriptures
Evidence from the Qur'an
- Surah 2:79
- Surah 4:157
- Evidence from the Statements of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him
- The Prophet's Accusation of the Jews and Christians Distorting Their Books
- Evidence From The Prophet's Conversation With The Jews
- The Description of the Prophet In The Torah and Gospel
- Evidence from the statements of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him
- The View of Ibn Abbaas (d. 68 A.H.)
- The View of Uthman Ibn 'Affan (d. 34 A.H.)
- Evidence from the conversation of Umar ibn Al Khattab (d. 22 A.H.)
- Evidence from the statement of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (d. 32 A.H.)
- Evidence from the statement of Abdullah ibn Salam (d. 43 A.H.)
- Evidence from the statement of Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn al-'Aass (d. 63 A.H.)
- Evidence From The Statements of The Early Muslims
- Evidence from the statements of Ka'b al-Ahbar (d. 14 A.H.)
- Evidence from the statement of Abul-`Aaliyah (d. 90 A.H.)
- The View of Muqatil bin Sulaiman (d. 150 A.H.)
- The View of Muhammad ibn Mansur al-Mahdi (d. 169 A.H.)
- Evidence from the conversation of Abu Jafar al-Ma'mun ibn Harun (d. 218 A.H.)
- The View of Abu 'Uthman 'Amr b. Bahr al-Fuqaymi al-Basri al-Jahiz (d. 255 A.H.)
- Evidence from the Statement of Sahl (d. ? A.H.)
- Evidence From The Statements of The Muslim Scholars
- The View of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.)
- The View of Az-Zajjaj (d. 311 A.H.)
- The View of Al- Hasan ibn Ayyub (d. 378 A.H.)
- The View of Abu Raihan Muhammad Al-Biruni (d. 440 A.H.)
- The View of Ibn Hazm (d. 456 A.H.)
- The View of Abu Muhammad Husayn b. Mas'ud ibn Muhammad al-Farra' al-Baghawi (d. 516 A.H.)
- The View of Az-Zamakhshari (d. 538 A.H.)
- The View of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 A.H.)
- The View of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H.)
- The View of Jalalayn (al-Mahilli d. 864 A.H.; as-Suyuti 911 A.H.)
The greatest source of religious authority in Islam is the glorious Qur'an, the verbatim Word of God. In this section I will only pose two verses as evidence. The reason for this is because it is clear from the verses themselves without need of interpretation that the Qur'an endorses textual corruption of the Christian and Jewish scriptures, while the other verses would need us to appeal to commentaries and see how the early Muslims understood those verses (will be discussed later on in the article). As for now, we will only look at the apparent meaning of the verses.
Surah 2:79
Allah says in the glorious Qur'an...
Surah 2:79
فويل للذين يكتبون الكتاب بايديهم ثم يقولون هذا من عند الله ليشتروا به ثمنا قليلا فويل لهم مما كتبت ايديهم وويل لهم مما يكسبون
Here we clearly see that Allah is warning those (Jews) who wrote the scripture from their own selves and then claimed that it was from God. A clear charge of TEXTUAL corruption. The verse is clear is clearly stating that whatever the Jews wrote, they claimed it was from God.
Some Christians say that the Qur'an is only talking about a specific group of people and that else where in the Qur'an it speaks about the People of the Book positively...
Surah 3:113-114:
ليسوا سواء من اهل الكتاب امة قائمة يتلون ايات الله اناء الليل وهم يسجدون
يؤمنون بالله واليوم الاخر ويامرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر ويسارعون في الخيرات واولئك من الصالحين
Surah 3:199
The People of the Book
being spoken about in Surah 3:113-114 are referring to those that
believed in the Prophethood of Muhammad peace be upon him and they
recite the Qur'an at night. (See Tafsir ibn Kathir)
The People of the Book being spoken about in Surah 3:199 are referring to those that believed in the Prophethood of Muhammad peace be upon him and were not afraid to speak up about his descriptions in their scriptures for some material gain. (See Tafsir ibn Kathir and Tafsir Jalalayn)
In no way, do these verses suggest that the People of the Book that believed in the Prophethood of Muhammad peace be upon him had the complete correct text of the Torah with them. For all it shows is that they understood the text properly or were aware of what the true Torah contained by oral traditions (e.g. their rightly guided parents). The Qur'an is not stating that there was a Torah corrupted textually and a Torah not corrupted textually. Nor does it say that the righteous people of the People of the Book ever participated in the corruption of the Torah. It does not require that ALL of the People of the Book come to corrupt it. A few people with great authority and power (we will see this later under the Ibn Abbaas's section) can achieve this task.
We can summarize the points as follows :-
- The Qur'an states that the Jews wrote 'The Book' with their own hands.
- 'The Book' referred to in the verse is 'The Book' being mentioned throughout several verses in the Qur'an in the possession of the Jews.
- The Qur'an states that the Jews after writing 'The Book' from their own selves, then claimed it was from God.
- Some try to argue back that the Jews only wrote their interpretations of the Torah such as the Talmud and then followed it. However, the Jews never claimed that the Talmud is scripture from God but is used to understand scripture. Rachmiel Frydland, a Talmudic scholar said...
Even if someone wants to go against the clear meaning of the verse, then the reader should continue reading this article and will see the various comments of the scholars regarding this verse and how they understood it to refer to textual corruption of the Torah.
Surah 4:157
Allah says in the glorious Qur'an...
Surah 4:157
وقولهم انا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وماقتلوه وماصلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وان الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه مالهم به من علم الا اتباع الظن وماقتلوه يقينا
The verse is making it
clear that the crucifixion of Jesus is conjecture or corruption. The
crucifixion of Jesus is clearly taught in the Gospels that we have
today, thus the Qur'an is clearly in an indirect way saying that this is
corrupted.
It is hilarious how some Christians try to argue back that the author of the Qur'an probably did not know that the crucifixion was mentioned in the Gospel and if he had then he probably would not have denied it.
Are Christians seriously asking us to believe that none of the Muslims during the Prophet's time knew that the gospels taught that Jesus was crucified yet at the same time believed that Islam told them to believe that the gospels in the possession of the Christians were pure and undistorted? Couldn't the Prophet have easily been exposed by Christian converts to Islam such as Salmaan al Faarisi or Maryam the Coptic slave girl sent from Egypt to the Prophet peace be upon him who would have known that the gospels taught the crucifixion while at the same time believed that Islam taught them that the gospels were undistorted? How about being exposed Christians and Jews at the time who knew what the gospels contained and should have known that Islam taught their scriptures are uncorrupted (assuming Islam teaches this) and then go expose the Prophet? Why don't we have any of these accusations from the Prophet's enemies at that time? This is something truly ridiculous to believe and requires evidence by Christian missionaries who would issue such a response.
The Prophet's Accusation of the Jews and Christians Distorting Their Books
Al-Hakim related in Al-Mustadrak the following Hadith...
Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Abdullah As-Saffar told us: Ahmad Ibn Mahdi Ibn Rustum Al-Asfahani told us: Mu'azh Ibn Hisham Ad-Distwani told us: my father told me: Al-Qasim Ibn 'Awf Ash-Shaybani told me: Mu'azh Ibn Jabal - radiya Allahu 'anhu - told us that he went to Sham and saw the Christians prostrate to their Bishops and priests and saw the Jews prostrate to their Rabbis and scholars. He said, "Why do you do this?" they answered, "This is the greeting of Prophets (peace be upon him)". I said, "We better do this to our Prophet". Allah's Prophet - salla Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam - said, "They lied about their Prophets just as they distorted their Book. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone, I would command woman to prostrate to her husband for his great right upon her. No woman will taste the sweetness of Faith till she does her husband's rights even if he asks herself while she is on a Qutub" (Al-Hakim commented, "This hadith is authentic according to standards of Al-Bukhari and Muslim, but they did not relate it" This hadith was also related by At-Tabarani in "Al-Mu'jam Al-Kabir" vol. 8, p.31 but it includes An-Nahhas Ibn Fahm who is a weak narrator. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal related it with a sound chain of transmission in his Musnad vol. 4, p. 381 (online source) with the following chain: 'Abdullah told us: my father (Ibn Hanbal) told me: Mu'azh Ibn Hisham told us: my father told me: Al-Qasim Ibn 'Awf - a man from Al-Kufa, one of Bani Murra Ibn Hammam - told me: Mu'azh Ibn Jabal - radiya Allahu 'anhu - told us that .. and mentioned the hadith. This hadith has been authenticated by Ibn Hajar Al Haytami in his Majma' Al Zawaaid, Volume 4, page 312. He said of the narrators in the chain 'their men are men of authenticity' )
Notice
that the Prophet peace be upon him is saying that the Christians and
Jews distorted their books JUST AS they lied about their Prophets. The
context of the situation is that the Christians and Jews said that
bowing down to their priests and rabbis was the greeting of the
Prophets. This is a forgery and a lie. Thus if they were to corrupt
their books in the same way they would have made up lies in the Torah
and Gospel by introducing false statements into it.
The Prophet peace be upon him elaborates more...
The Prophet peace be upon him also said...
So here we see that the Prophet peace be upon him is saying that the Israelites wrote their own book and started following it. Possible objections and responses to them are...
Objection: The Prophet was only referring to a certain group of the Israelites.
Response: The hadiths do not imply this, the Prophet peace be upon him made a general statement. If you want to limit the scope of the meaning of the statement then please provide objective evidence.
Objection: The Prophet only said that the Jews wrote a book and followed it, he doesn't say that the Torah was corrupted.
Response: But what does the hadith imply? It implies that the Jews have stopped following the true revelation sent down to Moses and that is the Torah. Instead they followed their own books. Don't the Jews of today follow the Pentateuch? Wouldn't that therefore mean that according to the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him most of the Pentateuch is what was written from the Jews themselves?
Objection: It is possible that Prophet Muhammad intended the term 'Torah' to mean Pentateuch and the book that the Jews wrote was the Talmud and it was possible that Prophet Muhammad intended to say that the Jews stopped following the Pentateuch and started following the Talmud only.
Response: That argument would be possible if it were true. The Jews refer to the Talmud in order to better understand the Pentateuch. They haven't abandoned their Pentateuch. They still follow it. If the Prophet said that the Jews wrote a book and followed it along with the Torah, then you might be able to possibly argue that it is referring to the Talmud and Pentateuch in this hadith. However, that is not the case.
Prophet's Conversation With The Jews
Let us read the following narration...
حدثنا يحيى بن موسى البلخي ثنا أبو أسامة قال مجالد أخبرنا عن عامر عن جابر بن عبد الله قال: جاءت اليهود برجل وامرأة منهم زنيا فقال ائتوني بأعلم رجلين منكم فأتوه بابني صوريا فنشدهما كيف تجدان أمر هذين في التوراة قالا نجد في التوراة إذا شهد أربعة أنهم رأوا ذكره في فرجها مثل الميل في المكحلة رجما قال فما يمنعكما أن ترجموهما قالا ذهب سلطاننا فكرهنا القتل فدعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالشهود فجاؤوا بأربعة فشهدوا أنهم رأوا ذكره في فرجها مثل الميل في المكحلة فأمر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم برجمهما
Indeed, we do find in the
Old Testament today that adulterers are to be killed (Leviticus 20:10).
But nowhere do we find anything about four witnesses (interestingly
Islam teaches this) or any eyeliner.
This is indirect proof that this section of the Torah has been distorted with.
The Description of the Prophet In The Torah and Gospel
Note how the man informed
the Prophet peace be upon him that one of the signs of the Prophet to
come according to the Torah or Gospel is that the Prophet will have
70,000 followers who will enter paradise with no judgment passed on
them. Where do we see this in today's Torah or Gospel? Nowhere. Thus
indicating that it has been removed from the text, which in turn implies
textual corruption.
Muslims believe that no
one understood Allah and His Messenger better than the companions of the
Prophet peace be upon him. The companions of the Prophet peace be upon
him were promised paradise in the Qur'an...
The Muhajirs refer to the
companions of the Prophet peace be upon him that migrated to Madina.
The Ansar refer to those Muslims in Medina that welcomed the Muhajirs to
come to their city.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also said:
"Indeed the people of the Book before you split into seventy-two sects. And this nation will split into seventy-three sects, seventy-two are in the Fire and one in Paradise". And in another narration, "All are in the Fire except one." It was asked: Who is that one? He replied, "That which I and my Companions are upon" (Related by at-Tirmidhi (5/62) and al-Haakim (1/128). It has been authenticated by al-Haafidh al-Iraaqee in Takhreejul-Ihyaa (3/199) and al-Albaanee in as-Saheehah (no.204), cited here)
So here we see that Islam
teaches that the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him are the
saved sect and were promised paradise. This is clearly because they
understood and practiced Islam better than anyone else. They are a great
authority to refer to. Obviously, this does not mean that the
companions were individually infallible, however their consensus on a
matter is.
Here, we will see some of the perspectives of the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him towards to the Christian and Jewish scriptures.
Ibn Abbaas (d. 68 A.H.)
Ibn Abbaas is one of the greatest companions of the Prophet peace be upon him. He holds much authority as a Quranic interpreter, for the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him prayed to Allah to make Ibn Abbaas a great commentator of the Qur'an and scholar of Islam in general...
Based on this, we can clearly see that Ibn Abbaas holds much authority when he speaks about religion. Therefore, it would be interesting to see what Ibn Abbaas had to say regarding the scriptures of the Christians and Jews...
Ibn Hazm describes the above narrations as...
Here we see that Ibn Hazm reinforces the fact that Ibn Abbaas truly held this position and that even the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him held the same position as well. Thus, there was a consensus amongst the companions that the Christians and the Jews had textually corrupted their scriptures.
Ibn Abbaas said in his commentary on Surah 2:79...
Abu al-Hasan Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Habib al-Mawardi (d. 450 A.H.) says in his commentary of the Qur'an An-Nukatu wal-'Uyoon on Surah 2, Verse 79...
Imam Tabari elaborates on Ibn Abbaas's position in his commentary on Surah 2:42...
In his commentary on Surah 2:75 Imam Ar Razi quotes al-Qadi 'Abd Al Jabbar (d. 415 A.H.) as affirming that Ibn Abbaas's opinion towards the Christian and Jewish scriptures is that there have been additions and subtractions made to and from them. (Source) Again, clearly indicating that Ibn Abbas's position is that the scriptures have been textually corrupted.
Another narration regarding Ibn Abbaas...
Some Christians try to distort the position of Ibn Abbaas by quoting the following narration from him...
This could be answered in more than one way.
First of all, WHERE IS THE FULL CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION? We can't find any full chain of transmission for this statement attributed to Ibn Abbaas. Famous hadith scholar Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani said regarding this narration...
and all scholars of
hadith have agreed that you cannot judge a narration to be authentic
unless you have the complete chain of transmission to examine and then
conclude if it is authentic or not (unless it is mursal and has specific
conditions being applied to it or if it has other corroborating
evidence). Imam Tabari in his commentary just simply quotes Mujahid ibn
Jabr Al Makhzumi (d. 104 A.H.) who then quotes the statement. However,
there is a 200 hundred-year gap between Imam Tabari and Mujaahid! Where
are the two or three people who should have come in the middle of the
chain?
Secondly, it contradicts the authentic narrations and well-known position of Ibn Abbaas on the matter and that is that he believed that the Jews and Christians textually corrupted their scriptures.
Imam Al-Badr al-'Aini notes in his commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari...
Here we can see that this alleged statement from Ibn Abbaas is one of those examples, therefore it must be rejected.
Thirdly, Ibn Abbaas's statement could be reinterpreted in order to be reconciled with the other statements that he has made. And that is that Ibn Abbaas intended to say that they changed what was in their hands of the text which was with them, but they could not change the original true text which is with Allah on al-Lawh al-Mahfudh (preserved tablet) since the speech of Allah is uncreated and no one can ever make it go lost completely and removing the words from the books here on earth does not mean that God's words have become totally lost but lost here on earth only.
Ibn Kathir says in his commentary of Surah 85, Verse 22...
Here we see that the Qur'an is also preserved in the Preserved Tablet from being corrupted and this strongly raises the possibility that this is what Ibn Abbaas was referring to when he made (assuming that he did) that statement. His intention was to say that the speech of God is in the Preserved Tablet (including the original Torah and Gospel) and cannot be changed.
We must conclude by saying that the authentic narrations clearly indicate that Ibn Abbaas supported textual corruption and that one narration whose chain of transmission we cannot even examine should not be a cause for us to doubt that position of Ibn Abbaas.
Uthman Ibn 'Affan (d. 34 A.H.)
Ibn Kathir reports Uthman Ibn 'Affan as saying...
Uthman's position is crystal clear and needs no interpretation. He clearly supported the view that the Jews textually corrupted their scriptures.
Conversation of Umar ibn Al Khattab (d. 22 A.H.)
The following narration tells us about a conversation that Umar ibn Al Khattab once had with a Jew...
The Jew spoke about the two angels on the sides of the human being. Where is this to be found in today's Torah? It is not. This means it was removed. Thus indicating textual corruption.
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (d. 32 A.H.) Abdullah ibn Mas'ud is reported to have said...
Here
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud is saying that the Torah says that whoever recites
Sura Al Mulk (Surah 67), it will protect him from the punishment of the
grave. I and everyone reading this article know very well that nowhere
is this found in today's Torah. It means that it was removed, thus
indicating textual corruption.
Abdullah ibn Salam (d. 43 A.H.)
Now we have to bear in mind that Abdullah ibn Salam was a very learned Rabbi and a scholar of the Torah before he came a Muslim...
So as we can see, Abdullah ibn Salam was very learned of the Torah. The following narration says the story of how Abdullah ibn Salam accepted Islam...
'Abdullah bin Salam heard the news of the arrival of Allah's Apostle (at Medina) while he was on a farm collecting its fruits. So he came to the Prophet and said, 'I will ask you about three things which nobody knows unless he be a prophet. Firstly, what is the first portent of the Hour? What is the first meal of the people of Paradise? And what makes a baby look like its father or mother?'. The Prophet said, 'Just now Gabriel has informed me about that.'
Now Abdullah ibn Salam
was learned of the Torah and was convinced of the Prophethood of
Muhammad peace be upon him after receiving the answers to those
questions. Surely, Abdullah ibn Salam would only have known this from
the Torah since he did not follow any other divine book. However, we
don't find the answers that the Prophet peace be upon him gave to
Abdullah ibn Salam in the Bible today. Therefore, it must have been
removed, thus indicating textual corruption.
Someone might argue back that the manuscripts that Christians have today in their possession predate the existence of Abdullah ibn Salam. But again, my argument does not imply that Abdullah ibn Salam had the true Torah with him. He could have received this information by oral traditions from the minority of righteous believers that knew the original contents of the Torah even though that they didn't have it with them in textual form. This is a possibility.
Either way, the argument is not whether the Islamic claim is true or not. The argument is that when us Muslims examine our Islamic teachings we come to realize that the Torah has been textually tampered with.
Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn al-'Aass (d. 63 A.H.)
The following narration shows us what Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn al-'Aass is reported to have said once during a conversation...
Here we see that Abdullah
bin Amr, stated that the Torah once said that the Prophet would be a
guardian of the illiterates. However, in today's Bible we do not see
this statement. This means that this statement was taken out, therefore
indicating textual corruption.
So we must appeal to the best of the Muslims and see how they understood Islam.
We will appeal to some of the early Muslims and see what their perspectives were regarding the Christian and Jewish scriptures.
Ka'b Al Ahbar (d. 14 A.H.)
Ka'b Al Ahbar was a prominent Rabbi who converted to Islam some years after the Prophet's death.
He is reported to have said in an authentic narration...
Here we see that Ka'b ibn Al Ahbar is giving descriptions of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah that we cannot find in today's Bibles. Some might argue that this narration is alluding to Isaiah 42, however if one compares the narration with the passage in Isaiah he would see that many traits are missing. (e.g. Ka'b mentions that the Prophets community will know how to pray by looking at the sun, yet this is not found in the Bible)
In another narration...
In another narration...
Ka'b says that all the above things are in the Torah, yet we don't find most of them in today's Bible.
Here is a conversation that occurred between Ka'b and the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him...
Notice, how Ka'b read the Torah and affirms that what the Prophet peace be upon him stated was true. Notice that the Prophet peace be upon him states that Adam was created on a Friday. This is true for if one reads the creation account in Genesis he will see that Adam was created on the sixth day (being Friday). However, where in the Bible today do we find the following...
Ka'b has stated several things about the Prophet peace be upon him that was or should have been in the Torah during their time and it is not in the Bible today.
This is an indirect proof that the Bible has been textually corrupted.
Abul-`Aaliyah (d. 90 A.H.)
Abul-`Aaliyah was a great Imam of Tafseer during his time. Imam Tabari quotes Abul-`Aaliyah as saying...
Abul-`Aaliyah is
basically stating that the first book of the Jews says that particular
statement about Adam. Well that statement is nowhere to be found in the
Bible today (i.e. Genesis).
Muqatil bin Sulaiman (d. 150 A.H.)
Early Qur'anic commentator Muqatil bin Sulaiman says in his commentary on Surah 2, Verse 79...
Muhammad ibn Mansur al-Mahdi (d. 169 A.H.)
The Caliph Muhammad ibn Mansur al-Mahdi clearly told his critic, the patriarch Timothy, that the Bible had contained many prophecies about Muhammad but the People of the Book had corrupted their texts and they had removed the prophecies. (Timothy, p. 33 ff., cited here)
conversation of Abu Jafar al-Ma'mun ibn Harun (d. 218 A.H.)
Imam Al Qurtubi in his commentary on Surah 15, Verse 9 relates a lengthy story of how a Jew became a Muslim. This took place during the reign of Abu Jafar al-Ma'mun ibn Harun sometime in the early 800's (C.E.).
The Jew was asked about how he became a Muslim. He said that he once bought three copies of each of the scriptures: Torah, Gospel and Qur'an.
He took each one of these books and began to remove and add some text to the books. He then stated that he went to the Jews and Christians and tried selling to them the distorted books and they bought it. He then stated that he went to the Muslims and attempted to sell them the distorted Qur'anic copies but they discovered the additions and deletions and refused to buy them. He then stated that he was sure that God had protected the Qur'an and reached the conclusion that Islam was the true religion.
He told this story to the Muslim ruler al-Ma'mun at that time whom then acknowledged and blessed his decision.
This shows that the early Muslims at that time believed that the scriptures of the Jews and Christians were textually corrupted and have not been preserved properly.
For the story, read Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi's, Tasfir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 15:9, Source
Abu 'Uthman 'Amr b. Bahr al-Fuqaymi al-Basri al-Jahiz (d. 255 A.H.) Abu 'Uthman 'Amr b. Bahr al-Fuqaymi al-Basri al-Jahiz argues that both Christian transmission and exegesis are corrupt: "We are certain that he (Jesus) came with none except pure unity and monotheism - that is supported by reason - but not the Trinity. We know that the Christians are in error both on the side of transmission, and on the side of exegesis." (Abu 'Uthman Amru Ibn Bahr aj-Jahiz, Thalath Rasa'il, ed. by J. Finkel (Cairo, al-Salafiyya Press, 1926), p.143, cited here))
Sahl (d. ? A.H.)
Muslim Scholars
No doubt, no one understands this wonderful religion of Islam more than the scholars who dedicate their lives to studying it.
The scholars are the
'inheritors of the Prophets', they inherit knowledge. Thus they hold
great religious authority for us to appeal to. We will therefore see
what some of the greatest Islamic commentators said regarding their
views towards the Christian and Jewish scriptures.
It is funny how some Christians are bold enough to misquote or misrepresent our scholars. Take for instance this Christian...
It is hilarious indeed that this Christian states that Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah was of the view that the Bible was not textuallycorrupted while Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a whole book talking about the corruption of the Christian and Jewish text. Ibn Taymiyyah is explicit on this matter. This will be shown later on below.
Imam Tabari and Imam Ar Razi are usual victims of the Christian missionaries who misrepresent their views. We will see more of this below.
As for Bukhari and Al Ghazaazali, I found no statements made by them that they supported the textual transmission of Bible. I also wasn't able to find any statements from them regarding what their views were. However, since the Christians initiated their claim, the burden of proof is on them.
We will first begin with the view of Imam Tabari...
Ibn Jarir al- Tabari (310 A.H.)
Imam Tabari says in his commentary on Surah 2:79...
Imam Tabari also states in his commentary on Surah 5:13...
Now here, someone might argue that Imam Tabari did not believe that the actual Torah was textually corrupted. But that the Jews only wrote books of their own interpretations (e.g. Talmud) and then claimed it was from God.
First of all, we already have shown above that the Jews don't claim that the Talmud or any of their commentaries are from God.
Secondly, even if they did this doesn't mean that Imam Tabari didn't believe that the Jews also textually corrupted their Torah.
Imam Tabari elaborates more on his position in his commentary on Surah 2:42...
We have already
established that Ibn Abbaas's position is that he believed that the Jews
and Christians textually corrupted their scriptures. We see above that
Imam Tabari supports Ibn Abbaas's position. Notice how Imam Tabari
quotes Ibn Abbaas's position as stating that the Jews mixed the truth of
what is in the Torah with the falsehood that they have written from
their own hands and that the Jews mixed them together. Clearly, speaking
about textual corruption. Then notice at the end that Imam Tabari is in
favour of Ibn Abbaas's position. Thus, Imam Tabari supported textual
corruption of the Jewish text.
Also, Ibn Kathir quotes Imam Tabari as saying...
Here we see that Imam Tabari is saying that the Qur'an is a criterion over the books before it (this includes the Christians and Jewish scriptures) and points out what is false and true in them. Clearly, Imam Tabari believed in the textual corruption of the books of the Christians and the Jews, otherwise he would not have uttered the last part of his statement 'and whatever disagrees with the Qur'an is false.'
Az-Zajjaj (d. 311 A.H.)
Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 373 A.H.), the well known Hanafi scholar in his commentary of the Qur'an known as Bahr al-'Ulum on Surah 2, verse 79 quotes Az-Zajjaj as saying...
Notice how the word 'erased' is used and then the same people 'wrote' different descriptions of the Prophet to come. Az-Zajjaj clearly believed in the textual corruption of the Torah.
Al- Hasan ibn Ayyub (d. 378 A.H.)
Al- Hasan ibn Ayyub (d. 378 A.H.) said "We are in no doubt that the People of the Book have altered some of their words" (Ibn Taymiyyah, Aj-Jawab As-Sahih, vol. 2, p. 342, cited here))
Abu Raihan Muhammad Al-Biruni (d. 440 A.H.)
Abu Raihan Muhammad Al-Biruni who is more of a historian then an Islamic scholar per se and a contemporary of Ibn Hazm, concerned himself with the dating of Biblical events especially in the context of the Old Testament. He, too, asserted that the scriptures had been misunderstood by Christians, and that material corruption of the genuine text had taken place. (Al-Biruni, Al-Athar Al-Baqiyah, pp. 13 ff and p. 32 f., cited here))
Ibn Hazm (456 A.H.)
Ibn Hazm said...
Ibn Hazm further states in the same book...
Ibn Hazm also states that both Christians and Jews necessarily have both truth and falsehood in their books. (Ibn Hazm, Al-Fasl fi'l Milal, vol.2, p. 11, cited here)
Ibn Hazm's perspective is clear and needs no elaboration.
Abu Muhammad Husayn b. Mas'ud ibn Muhammad al-Farra' al-Baghawi (d. 516 A.H.)
Al Baghawi in his famous Qur'anic commentary Ma'alim at-Tanzeel, while commenting on Surah 2, Verse 79 clearly talks about how there was a certain description of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him in the Torah and then the Jews went and wrote something else besides it and changed his description. (See here)
This clearly shows that Al Baghawi believed that the Jews textually corrupted their scriptures by meddling with the description of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him in the Torah.
Az-Zamakhshari (d. 538 A.H.)
Imam az-Zamakhshari said...
Notice how az-Zamakhshari
states that one of the purposes of the Qur'an is to confirm and protect
the Truth contained in the Torah and Gospel. Now, if Zamakhshari
believed that the Torah and the Gospel were pure and uncorrupted, he
would have simply stated that the Qur'an confirms the entire Torah and
Gospel in the possession of the Christians and Jews. However, he wanted
to clarify what is meant by the Quran's confirmation and that is that it
confirms the truth in the Torah and Gospel, which indicates that the
Torah and Gospel contain falsehood. Thus, az-Zamakhshari makes it clear
that he believes that the Torah and Gospels were textually distorted.
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 A.H.)
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi has perhaps been the most misrepresented scholar on the issue by Christian missionaries. They quote him in many parts of his commentary in which he says that he doesn't believe that the specific verse in question is not speaking about textual corruption of the scripture but only distorting its interpretation and then they falsely conclude that Imam ar-Razi did not support the idea of textual corruption at all. What these missionaries forget to realize is that one must look at ALL of Imam Razi's statements in his famous commentary on the Qur'an in order to see truly what his position was regarding the Christian and Jewish scriptures.
First of all we have to realize that Imam ar-Razi condemned certain parts of the Gospel...
Realize how Imam ar-Razi
condemns the use of the word 'Father' that Christians use. But this is
also used in the Gospel. This is an indirect condemnation from Imam
ar-Razi on the present day Gospels.
Imam ar-Razi said else where...
Notice that Imam ar-Razi said...
If Imam ar-Razi truly
believed that the text of the Torah and Gospels has been preserved then
he wouldn't have uttered that statement. The fact that he believes some
parts of the Prophet Muhammad's descriptions and traits were maintained
in the Torah and Gospels actually shows that he doesn't believe that all
of them were. Thus he indirectly shows us that he believes that the
Torah and Gospels were textually corrupted.
Imam ar-Razi in his commentary on Surah 4, verse 46 makes it crystal clear that he supported textual corruption of the previous scriptures...
Imam ar-Razi has spoken and made it clear. Yes indeed, Imam ar-Razi at times has said that certain verses like Surah 4:46 does not indicate textual corruption but only misinterpreting the text. However, we must not forget that Imam ar-Razi has also stated that verses such as Surah 5:41 do teach that textual corruption has been made. Case closed.
The View of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H.)
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said:
Clearly Ibn Taymiyyah does not believe that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the Gospels that were revealed by Allah. Thus believing that the original and true Gospel has been textually corrupted.
Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah's famous book al-Jawaab al-Saheeh in refuting the Christians could be read here.
al-Qurtubi (d. 671 A.H.)
Imam al-Qurtubi states in his commentary on Surah 2:211...
Imam al-Qurtubi also states in his commentary on Surah 5:13...
Imam al-Qurtubi says in one of his books...
Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah agrees with this position in his book al-Jawaab al-Saheeh, Vol.1, pp.5, cited here.
Also, Abu al-Fadl al-S'udi al-Maliki (d. 942 A.H.) agrees with this position as well in his book Al Muntakhab Al Jalil Min Takhjil Man Harrafa Al-Injil, (Cairo, al-Tamadun, 1322 A.H.), pp.14, cited here.
Imam Qurtubi explicitly states that the corruption was with the letters (indicating textual corruption) and states that the Gospel in the possession of the Christians is not the one in which Allah claims to have revealed in the Qur'an. Therefore, clearly stating that the text of the Gospel that the Christians have is not the same as what Allah has revealed. Thus, Imam Qurtubi is clearly stating that he believes that the text of the Gospel has been textually corrupted.
Sulaiman ibn Abdul-Qawi al-Tufi (d. 716 A.H.)
Be acknowledged that these Scriptures [of Jews and Christians] are unreliable because we consider them corrupted and changed. Yes, alteration have not involved them entirely, but reached them after all. That is why our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: (( Do not believe the People of the Book and do not deny them. Say: "We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you. Our God and your God is One, and to Him we have submitted.'')).
He prohibited believing them for fear of that they may tell us something that is definitely corrupted, and disbelieving them for fear of that it may be not corrupted. (Sulaiman ibn Abdul-Qawi al-Tufi, Al-Intesarat Al-Islamiyyah, 1/230-232)
and says:
Moreover, the same way they [i.e., Jews and Christians] do not consider our Book reliable, we do not consider their Books reliable. This is actually prior because their Books are older and much subjected to mistranslation on the contrary of our Book. (Ibid., 1/232)
and says:
Additions and omissions do not reach it [the Qur'an] on the contrary of the Torah and the Injil as I have seen myself in the two Scriptures regarding contradiction and discrepency and noted in my commentary on the two Scriptures. (Ibid., 1/294)
and says:
and says:
The general answer is lack of trust in these Scriptures due to their antiquity, translation from one language to another and suspicion in honesty of Jews and Christians [in preservation] especially regarding the Injil for I explained in my commentary on it our excuses of non-trust in it concerning difference and contradiction. (Ibid., 1/350)
Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.)
Ibn Kathir states in his commentary on Surah 5:15...
Ibn Kathir also says...
Ibn Kathir's statements cannot get any clearer. He declared a story found in the Old Testament to be a forgery. Since the story is found in the text of the Old Testament and it is declared a forgery then clearly Ibn Kathir believed that the text of the Jewish scripture was corrupted.
Jalalayn (al-Mahilli d. 864 A.H.; as-Suyuti 911 A.H.)
As-Suyuti says in his commentary on Surah 2:79...
Clearly as-Suyuti believed that the Jews meddled with the descriptions of the Prophet in the Torah and then wrote things in contrast to them. as- Suyuti is clearly speaking about textual corruption of the Torah by the Jews in regards to the Prophet's traits and descriptions.
- Surah 2:79
- Surah 4:157
- Evidence from the Statements of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him
- The Prophet's Accusation of the Jews and Christians Distorting Their Books
- Evidence From The Prophet's Conversation With The Jews
- The Description of the Prophet In The Torah and Gospel
- Evidence from the statements of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him
- The View of Ibn Abbaas (d. 68 A.H.)
- The View of Uthman Ibn 'Affan (d. 34 A.H.)
- Evidence from the conversation of Umar ibn Al Khattab (d. 22 A.H.)
- Evidence from the statement of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (d. 32 A.H.)
- Evidence from the statement of Abdullah ibn Salam (d. 43 A.H.)
- Evidence from the statement of Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn al-'Aass (d. 63 A.H.)
- Evidence From The Statements of The Early Muslims
- Evidence from the statements of Ka'b al-Ahbar (d. 14 A.H.)
- Evidence from the statement of Abul-`Aaliyah (d. 90 A.H.)
- The View of Muqatil bin Sulaiman (d. 150 A.H.)
- The View of Muhammad ibn Mansur al-Mahdi (d. 169 A.H.)
- Evidence from the conversation of Abu Jafar al-Ma'mun ibn Harun (d. 218 A.H.)
- The View of Abu 'Uthman 'Amr b. Bahr al-Fuqaymi al-Basri al-Jahiz (d. 255 A.H.)
- Evidence from the Statement of Sahl (d. ? A.H.)
- Evidence From The Statements of The Muslim Scholars
- The View of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.)
- The View of Az-Zajjaj (d. 311 A.H.)
- The View of Al- Hasan ibn Ayyub (d. 378 A.H.)
- The View of Abu Raihan Muhammad Al-Biruni (d. 440 A.H.)
- The View of Ibn Hazm (d. 456 A.H.)
- The View of Abu Muhammad Husayn b. Mas'ud ibn Muhammad al-Farra' al-Baghawi (d. 516 A.H.)
- The View of Az-Zamakhshari (d. 538 A.H.)
- The View of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 A.H.)
- The View of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H.)
- The View of al-Qurtubi (d. 671 A.H.)
- The View of Sulaiman ibn Abdul-Qawi al-Tufi (d. 716 A.H.)
- The View of Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.) - The View of Jalalayn (al-Mahilli d. 864 A.H.; as-Suyuti 911 A.H.)
Evidence from the Qur'an
The greatest source of religious authority in Islam is the glorious Qur'an, the verbatim Word of God. In this section I will only pose two verses as evidence. The reason for this is because it is clear from the verses themselves without need of interpretation that the Qur'an endorses textual corruption of the Christian and Jewish scriptures, while the other verses would need us to appeal to commentaries and see how the early Muslims understood those verses (will be discussed later on in the article). As for now, we will only look at the apparent meaning of the verses.
Surah 2:79
Allah says in the glorious Qur'an...
Surah 2:79
فويل للذين يكتبون الكتاب بايديهم ثم يقولون هذا من عند الله ليشتروا به ثمنا قليلا فويل لهم مما كتبت ايديهم وويل لهم مما يكسبون
Therefore
woe be unto those who write the Book with their hands and then say,
"This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe
unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that
they earn thereby.
Here we clearly see that Allah is warning those (Jews) who wrote the scripture from their own selves and then claimed that it was from God. A clear charge of TEXTUAL corruption. The verse is clear is clearly stating that whatever the Jews wrote, they claimed it was from God.
Some Christians say that the Qur'an is only talking about a specific group of people and that else where in the Qur'an it speaks about the People of the Book positively...
Surah 3:113-114:
ليسوا سواء من اهل الكتاب امة قائمة يتلون ايات الله اناء الليل وهم يسجدون
يؤمنون بالله واليوم الاخر ويامرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر ويسارعون في الخيرات واولئك من الصالحين
"Not
all of them are alike. Some of the People of the Book are an upright
people. They recite the signs (or verses) of God in the night season and
they bow down worshipping. They believe in God and the last day. They
command what is just, and forbid what is wrong and they hasten in good
works, and they are of the righteous.
Surah 3:199
"And
there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe
in God, and that which has been revealed to you, in that which has been
revealed to them, bowing in humility to God. They will not sell the
signs of God for miserable gain. For them is a reward with their Lord,
and God is swift in account."
The People of the Book being spoken about in Surah 3:199 are referring to those that believed in the Prophethood of Muhammad peace be upon him and were not afraid to speak up about his descriptions in their scriptures for some material gain. (See Tafsir ibn Kathir and Tafsir Jalalayn)
In no way, do these verses suggest that the People of the Book that believed in the Prophethood of Muhammad peace be upon him had the complete correct text of the Torah with them. For all it shows is that they understood the text properly or were aware of what the true Torah contained by oral traditions (e.g. their rightly guided parents). The Qur'an is not stating that there was a Torah corrupted textually and a Torah not corrupted textually. Nor does it say that the righteous people of the People of the Book ever participated in the corruption of the Torah. It does not require that ALL of the People of the Book come to corrupt it. A few people with great authority and power (we will see this later under the Ibn Abbaas's section) can achieve this task.
We can summarize the points as follows :-
- The Qur'an states that the Jews wrote 'The Book' with their own hands.
- 'The Book' referred to in the verse is 'The Book' being mentioned throughout several verses in the Qur'an in the possession of the Jews.
- The Qur'an states that the Jews after writing 'The Book' from their own selves, then claimed it was from God.
- Some try to argue back that the Jews only wrote their interpretations of the Torah such as the Talmud and then followed it. However, the Jews never claimed that the Talmud is scripture from God but is used to understand scripture. Rachmiel Frydland, a Talmudic scholar said...
We
do not believe that the TALMUD is inspired by the RUACH HA KODESH (the
Holy Spirit of God), or that it is the Word of God. The Talmud does not
claim to be the Word of God, but rather an interpretation and an
explanation of the Law of God, the TORAH. (Rachmiel Frydland, When Talmud is Right, Source)
- 'The Book' is clearly then referring to the Jewish scriptures that Jews state are from God (i.e. Old Testament). Even if someone wants to go against the clear meaning of the verse, then the reader should continue reading this article and will see the various comments of the scholars regarding this verse and how they understood it to refer to textual corruption of the Torah.
Surah 4:157
Allah says in the glorious Qur'an...
Surah 4:157
وقولهم انا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وماقتلوه وماصلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وان الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه مالهم به من علم الا اتباع الظن وماقتلوه يقينا
And
their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the
apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him,
but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ
therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting
it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
It is hilarious how some Christians try to argue back that the author of the Qur'an probably did not know that the crucifixion was mentioned in the Gospel and if he had then he probably would not have denied it.
Are Christians seriously asking us to believe that none of the Muslims during the Prophet's time knew that the gospels taught that Jesus was crucified yet at the same time believed that Islam told them to believe that the gospels in the possession of the Christians were pure and undistorted? Couldn't the Prophet have easily been exposed by Christian converts to Islam such as Salmaan al Faarisi or Maryam the Coptic slave girl sent from Egypt to the Prophet peace be upon him who would have known that the gospels taught the crucifixion while at the same time believed that Islam taught them that the gospels were undistorted? How about being exposed Christians and Jews at the time who knew what the gospels contained and should have known that Islam taught their scriptures are uncorrupted (assuming Islam teaches this) and then go expose the Prophet? Why don't we have any of these accusations from the Prophet's enemies at that time? This is something truly ridiculous to believe and requires evidence by Christian missionaries who would issue such a response.
The Prophet's Accusation of the Jews and Christians Distorting Their Books
Al-Hakim related in Al-Mustadrak the following Hadith...
Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Abdullah As-Saffar told us: Ahmad Ibn Mahdi Ibn Rustum Al-Asfahani told us: Mu'azh Ibn Hisham Ad-Distwani told us: my father told me: Al-Qasim Ibn 'Awf Ash-Shaybani told me: Mu'azh Ibn Jabal - radiya Allahu 'anhu - told us that he went to Sham and saw the Christians prostrate to their Bishops and priests and saw the Jews prostrate to their Rabbis and scholars. He said, "Why do you do this?" they answered, "This is the greeting of Prophets (peace be upon him)". I said, "We better do this to our Prophet". Allah's Prophet - salla Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam - said, "They lied about their Prophets just as they distorted their Book. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone, I would command woman to prostrate to her husband for his great right upon her. No woman will taste the sweetness of Faith till she does her husband's rights even if he asks herself while she is on a Qutub" (Al-Hakim commented, "This hadith is authentic according to standards of Al-Bukhari and Muslim, but they did not relate it" This hadith was also related by At-Tabarani in "Al-Mu'jam Al-Kabir" vol. 8, p.31 but it includes An-Nahhas Ibn Fahm who is a weak narrator. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal related it with a sound chain of transmission in his Musnad vol. 4, p. 381 (online source) with the following chain: 'Abdullah told us: my father (Ibn Hanbal) told me: Mu'azh Ibn Hisham told us: my father told me: Al-Qasim Ibn 'Awf - a man from Al-Kufa, one of Bani Murra Ibn Hammam - told me: Mu'azh Ibn Jabal - radiya Allahu 'anhu - told us that .. and mentioned the hadith. This hadith has been authenticated by Ibn Hajar Al Haytami in his Majma' Al Zawaaid, Volume 4, page 312. He said of the narrators in the chain 'their men are men of authenticity' )
The Prophet peace be upon him elaborates more...
إن بني إسرائيل كتبوا كتابا فاتبعوه, و تركوا التوراة
The Bani Israel wrote a book, they followed it and left the Torah. (This hadith was reported in Tabarani's Al Mu'jam Al Awsat and was authenticated by Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2832.)
The Prophet peace be upon him also said...
إن بني إسرائيل لما طال الأمد و قست قلوبهم اخترعوا كتابا من عند أنفسهم , استهوته قلوبهم و استحلته ألسنتهم
The Bani Israel as a long time passed and their hearts became hardened, they invented a book from themselves. It took over their hearts and their tongues. (This hadith was reported in Al Bayhaqi's Shu'b Al Eemaan, Volume 2, no.439. Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani has authenticated this hadith in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2694.)
So here we see that the Prophet peace be upon him is saying that the Israelites wrote their own book and started following it. Possible objections and responses to them are...
Objection: The Prophet was only referring to a certain group of the Israelites.
Response: The hadiths do not imply this, the Prophet peace be upon him made a general statement. If you want to limit the scope of the meaning of the statement then please provide objective evidence.
Objection: The Prophet only said that the Jews wrote a book and followed it, he doesn't say that the Torah was corrupted.
Response: But what does the hadith imply? It implies that the Jews have stopped following the true revelation sent down to Moses and that is the Torah. Instead they followed their own books. Don't the Jews of today follow the Pentateuch? Wouldn't that therefore mean that according to the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him most of the Pentateuch is what was written from the Jews themselves?
Objection: It is possible that Prophet Muhammad intended the term 'Torah' to mean Pentateuch and the book that the Jews wrote was the Talmud and it was possible that Prophet Muhammad intended to say that the Jews stopped following the Pentateuch and started following the Talmud only.
Response: That argument would be possible if it were true. The Jews refer to the Talmud in order to better understand the Pentateuch. They haven't abandoned their Pentateuch. They still follow it. If the Prophet said that the Jews wrote a book and followed it along with the Torah, then you might be able to possibly argue that it is referring to the Talmud and Pentateuch in this hadith. However, that is not the case.
Prophet's Conversation With The Jews
Let us read the following narration...
حدثنا يحيى بن موسى البلخي ثنا أبو أسامة قال مجالد أخبرنا عن عامر عن جابر بن عبد الله قال: جاءت اليهود برجل وامرأة منهم زنيا فقال ائتوني بأعلم رجلين منكم فأتوه بابني صوريا فنشدهما كيف تجدان أمر هذين في التوراة قالا نجد في التوراة إذا شهد أربعة أنهم رأوا ذكره في فرجها مثل الميل في المكحلة رجما قال فما يمنعكما أن ترجموهما قالا ذهب سلطاننا فكرهنا القتل فدعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالشهود فجاؤوا بأربعة فشهدوا أنهم رأوا ذكره في فرجها مثل الميل في المكحلة فأمر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم برجمهما
The
Jews brought [to the Prophet peace be upon him] a man and a woman among
them who committed adultery. The Prophet peace be upon him said, "Bring
the two most knowledgeable men from amongst you." The Jews brought the
two sons of Suriyya, and the Prophet peace be upon him asked them,
"What punishment do you find in the Torah regarding these two?" They
said, "In the Torah, we find that if four men testify that they
saw his male organ in her womb, similar to when the eyeliner is inserted
inside the eyeliner container; in this case they are stoned."
The Prophet peace be upon him said, "What made you stop stoning?" They
said, "Our kingship (meaning Jewish) was taken from us and we hated
killing." The Messenger of Allah asked for four witnesses and they
brought four men who testified that they saw his penis in her womb like
the eyeliner is inserted in the eyeliner container. The Messenger of
Allah ordered that the two [adulterers] are stoned. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith no. 3862, Source. Sheikh Albani declared this hadith authentic in Sunan Abu Dawud, hadith no.4452)
This is indirect proof that this section of the Torah has been distorted with.
The Description of the Prophet In The Torah and Gospel
Narrated by Al Fultaan ibn A'asim:
أتشهد
أني رسول الله ؟ ، قال : لا ، قال : أتقرأ التوراة ؟ ، قال : نعم ، قال :
والإنجيل ؟ ، قال : نعم ، قال : والقرآن ؟ ، قال : والذي نفسي بيده لو أشاء
لقرأته ، قال : ثم نشده قال : [ ما ] تجدني في التوراة والإنجيل ؟ . قال :
نجد مثلك ومثل أمتك ومخرجك ، وكنا نرجو أن تكون فينا ، فلما خرجت تخوفنا
أن تكون أنت ، فنظرنا فإذا ليس أنت هو ، قال : ولم ذاك ؟ ، قال : إن معه من أمته سبعين ألفا ليس عليهم حساب ولا عقاب ، وإنما معك نفر يسير ؟ قال : والذي نفسي بيده لأنا هو ، وإنها لأمتي ، وإنهم لأكثر من سبعين ألفا ، وسبعين ألفا ، وسبعين ألفا
Do
you bear witness that I am the Messenger of Allah? He said: No. The
Prophet peace be upon him said: Do you read the Torah? He replied back:
Yes. Then the Prophet peace be upon him asked: and the Gospel? The man
replied: Yes. The Prophet peace be upon him then asked: The Qur'an? The
man replied back: No. The Prophet peace be upon him replied back: By He
Whose Hand my soul lies, if I willed I would read it. Then the Prophet
peace be upon him pulled the man and asked: Don't you find me in the
Torah and Gospel? The man replied back and said: We find someone who is
similar to you and your Ummah (community) and from the place where you
were brought up and we were hoping that you would be from amongst us.
When you rose up (as a Prophet) we were afraid that it would be you.
However, we looked and saw that it wasn't you. The Prophet peace be upon
him replied back asking: Why is that? The man said: From him will be 70,000 of his followers from his community who will have no judgment passed on them nor punishment
but you have a simple number of men following you. The Prophet peace be
upon him replied back: By He Whose Hand my soul lies it is me and it is
referring to my Ummah (community). And they are more than 70 thousand,
70 thousand, 70 thousand. (This hadith has been declared authentic by Sheikh Albani in Saheeh Al Muwaarid, page or hadith no. 1765)
Evidence from the Statements of the Companions
والسابقون الاولون من المهاجرين والانصار والذين اتبعوهم باحسان رضي الله عنهم ورضوا عنه واعد لهم جنات تجري تحتها الانهار خالدين فيها ابدا ذلك الفوز العظيم
Surah 9:100
And (as for) the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars,
and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with
them and they are well pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them
gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them forever; that is the
mighty achievement.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also said:
"Indeed the people of the Book before you split into seventy-two sects. And this nation will split into seventy-three sects, seventy-two are in the Fire and one in Paradise". And in another narration, "All are in the Fire except one." It was asked: Who is that one? He replied, "That which I and my Companions are upon" (Related by at-Tirmidhi (5/62) and al-Haakim (1/128). It has been authenticated by al-Haafidh al-Iraaqee in Takhreejul-Ihyaa (3/199) and al-Albaanee in as-Saheehah (no.204), cited here)
Here, we will see some of the perspectives of the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him towards to the Christian and Jewish scriptures.
Ibn Abbaas (d. 68 A.H.)
Ibn Abbaas is one of the greatest companions of the Prophet peace be upon him. He holds much authority as a Quranic interpreter, for the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him prayed to Allah to make Ibn Abbaas a great commentator of the Qur'an and scholar of Islam in general...
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 001, Book 003, Hadith Number 075.
Narated By Ibn 'Abbaas : Once the Prophet embraced me and said, "O Allah! Bestow on him the knowledge of the Book (Qur'an)."
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 145:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbaas:
Once
the Prophet entered a lavatory and I placed water for his ablution. He
asked, "Who placed it?" He was informed accordingly and so he said, "O Allah! Make him (Ibn 'Abbaas) a learned scholar in religion (Islam)." (See also Volume 005, Book 057, Hadith Numbers 100 & 101A)
Saheeh Muslim
Book 031, Hadith Number 6055.
Chapter : The merits of 'Abdullah b. 'Abbaas (Allah be pleased with him).
Ibn
'Abbaas reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to
privy and I placed for him water for ablution, When he came out he
said: Who placed it here? And in a version of Zuhair they (the
Companions) said, and in the version of Abu Bakr (the words are): I
said: It is Ibn 'Abbaas (who has done that), whereupon he (the Holy
Prophet) said: May Allah grant him deep understanding of religion.
Based on this, we can clearly see that Ibn Abbaas holds much authority when he speaks about religion. Therefore, it would be interesting to see what Ibn Abbaas had to say regarding the scriptures of the Christians and Jews...
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 613:
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Ibn 'Abbaas said, "How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah's Book (the Qur'an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?"
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614:
Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah:
'Abdullah bin 'Abbaas said, "O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and
is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the
Scriptures have changed some of Allah's Books and distorted it and wrote
something with their own hands and said, 'This is from Allah,
so as to have a minor gain for it. Won't the knowledge that has come to
you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man
from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur'an ) which has been
revealed to you.
The
soundest Isnad (chain of transmission) or ascription to Ibn Abbaas,
which is exactly our view. There is no difference between the companions
on this matter. (Ibn Hazm, Al-Fasl fi'l Milal, Volume 2, p. 3, cited here)
Here we see that Ibn Hazm reinforces the fact that Ibn Abbaas truly held this position and that even the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him held the same position as well. Thus, there was a consensus amongst the companions that the Christians and the Jews had textually corrupted their scriptures.
Ibn Abbaas said in his commentary on Surah 2:79...
(Therefore
woe) severe punishment, and it is said this means: a valley in Hell (be
unto those who write the Scripture with their hands) change the
description and traits of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Book (and then say, "
This is) in the Book that has come (from Allah " , that they may
purchase) through changing and altering it (a small gain therewith)
a small gain in terms of means of subsistence and surplus of property.
(Woe unto them) theirs is a severe punishment (for what their hands have
written) have altered (and woe unto them) and theirs is a severe
punishment (for what they earn thereby) of unlawful earnings and bribes.
(Ibn Abbaas, Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn 'Abbâs, Commentary on Surah 2:79, Source)
Abu al-Hasan Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Habib al-Mawardi (d. 450 A.H.) says in his commentary of the Qur'an An-Nukatu wal-'Uyoon on Surah 2, Verse 79...
أحدهما: أن الأُمّي: الذي لا يكتب ولا يقرأ، وهو قول مجاهد وأظهرُ تأويله.
والثاني: أنَّ الأُمّيين: قوم لم يصدقوا رسولاً أرسله الله، ولا كتاباً أنزله الله، وكتبوا كتاباً بأيديهم، وقال الجهال لقومهم: هذا من عند الله، وهذا قول ابن عباس
والثاني: أنَّ الأُمّيين: قوم لم يصدقوا رسولاً أرسله الله، ولا كتاباً أنزله الله، وكتبوا كتاباً بأيديهم، وقال الجهال لقومهم: هذا من عند الله، وهذا قول ابن عباس
Firstly:
The word Ummi in the verse could refer to someone who does not know how
to read or write, and this is the statement of Mujaahid and the more
apparent interpretation.
Secondly:
The word Ummi in the verse could refer to a people who did not believe
in a Messenger that Allah has sent, and they also don't believe in a
book that Allah has sent, and they wrote a book with their own
hands and told the ignorant people "This is from Allah", and this is the
view of Ibn Abbaas. (Source)
{
وَلَا تَلْبِسُوا الْحَقّ بِالْبَاطِلِ } قَالَ : الْحَقّ : التَّوْرَاة
الَّذِي أَنَزَلَ اللَّه عَلَى مُوسَى , وَالْبَاطِل : الَّذِي كَتَبُوهُ
بِأَيْدِيهِمْ
فَرُوِيَ
عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس وَغَيْره لَا تَخْلِطُوا مَا عِنْدكُمْ مِنْ الْحَقّ
فِي الْكِتَاب بِالْبَاطِلِ وَهُوَ التَّغْيِير وَالتَّبْدِيل
Regarding
the verse 'Confound not truth with falsehood': The truth: it is the
Torah that Allah revealed to Moses. Falsehood: it is what they have
written from their own hands.... It was reported that Ibn Abbaas
and others said 'Do not mix the truth of what you have in the Book with
falsehood' and that is the changing and substituting. (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 2:42, Source)
In his commentary on Surah 2:75 Imam Ar Razi quotes al-Qadi 'Abd Al Jabbar (d. 415 A.H.) as affirming that Ibn Abbaas's opinion towards the Christian and Jewish scriptures is that there have been additions and subtractions made to and from them. (Source) Again, clearly indicating that Ibn Abbas's position is that the scriptures have been textually corrupted.
Another narration regarding Ibn Abbaas...
كانت ملوك بعد عيسى بن مريم عليه الصلاة والسلام بدلوا التوراة والإنجيل وكان فيهم مؤمنون يقرؤون التوراة
قيل لملوكهم ما نجد شتما أشد من شتم يشتمونا هؤلاء إنهم يقرؤون { ومن لم
يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون } وهؤلاء الآيات مع ما يعيبونا به
في أعمالنا في قراءتهم فادعهم فليقرؤوا كما نقرأ وليؤمنوا كما آمنا فدعاهم
فجمعهم وعرض عليهم القتل أو يتركوا قراءة التوراة والإنجيل إلا ما بدلوا منها
Narrated by Sa'eed ibn Juabair: Ibn
Abbaas said: The kings after the time of Jesus the son of Mary peace be
upon him substituted the Torah and Gospel and there used to be amongst
them believers who were reading the Torah. It was said to the
kings: We do not find an insult greater than the insult of those that
read "And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are
disbelievers" and their recitation of these similar kind of verses which
they shame us with in our daily activities. So tell them to read just
as what we read and let them believe just as we believe.' So the king
summoned them and gathered them together. He proposed either death
to them or that they leave the recitation of the Torah and Gospel
except what they substitute in place of it. [(Sunan Al Nisaa'i, hadith no. 5305), Source, Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani authenticated this narration in Sunan Al Nisaa'i, hadith no. 5400]
So
here we see that Ibn Abbaas talks about how the kings of the past used
to force people to switch to their corrupted version of the scriptures.
Clearly indicating that their scriptures contained writings, which were
false, thus the scriptures that the masses were using were textually
corrupted. Since the kings forced the people to switch to their
scriptures or had them killed, this meant that the true uncorrupted
scriptures became lost or possibly remained safe with a very few number
of people, but it seems clear that the corrupted copies were distributed
more widely.
Some Christians try to distort the position of Ibn Abbaas by quoting the following narration from him...
"By the Mount and an Inscribed Book" (52:1-2): Qatada said that "mastur" means "written". "Yasturun" (68:1) means, "they inscribe", and the Umm al-Kitab (43:4) is the whole of the Qur'an and its source. [He said that] "ma talfizu"
(50:18) means: "He does not say anything but that it is written against
him." Ibn 'Abbaas said, "Both good and evil are recorded," and "yuharrufuna" (4:46) means, "they remove". NO ONE REMOVES THE WORKS OF ONE OF THE BOOKS OF ALLAH ALMIGHTY, BUT THEY TWIST THEM, INTERPRETING THEM IMPROPERLY. "Dirasatihim: (6:156) means "their recitation" "Wa'iyya" (69:12) is preserving, "ta'iha" (69:12) means to "preserve it". "This Qur'an has been revealed to me by inspiration that I may warn you," meaning the people of Makka, "and all whom it reaches"(6:19) meaning this Qur'an, so he is its warner.
This could be answered in more than one way.
First of all, WHERE IS THE FULL CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION? We can't find any full chain of transmission for this statement attributed to Ibn Abbaas. Famous hadith scholar Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani said regarding this narration...
I
did not find it with continuous chain of reporters (mawsoul) on
authority of Ibn 'Abbaas in spite of the fact that what is said before
it is from his words as well as that is after it....
Many
of our folks (ashabena) have explicitly declared that the Torah and the
Gospel has been corrupted (hurrifat) in contradiction with what
Al-Bukhari mentions here [on authority of Ibn 'Abbaas] (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fath-ul-Bari fe Sharh Sahih-el-Bukhari, Book of "Oneness of God", Chapter 55, Number 6223)
Secondly, it contradicts the authentic narrations and well-known position of Ibn Abbaas on the matter and that is that he believed that the Jews and Christians textually corrupted their scriptures.
Imam Al-Badr al-'Aini notes in his commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari...
Al-Bukhari frequently relates reports and sayings of Sahaba and others without isnad (chain of transmission) (Al-Badr Al-'Aini, Umdat-ul-Qari, Volume 1, page 9)
Here we can see that this alleged statement from Ibn Abbaas is one of those examples, therefore it must be rejected.
Thirdly, Ibn Abbaas's statement could be reinterpreted in order to be reconciled with the other statements that he has made. And that is that Ibn Abbaas intended to say that they changed what was in their hands of the text which was with them, but they could not change the original true text which is with Allah on al-Lawh al-Mahfudh (preserved tablet) since the speech of Allah is uncreated and no one can ever make it go lost completely and removing the words from the books here on earth does not mean that God's words have become totally lost but lost here on earth only.
Ibn Kathir says in his commentary of Surah 85, Verse 22...
(Nay! This is a Glorious Qur'an.) meaning, magnificent and noble.
(In Al-Lawh Al-Mahfuz!) meaning, among the most high gathering, guarded from any increase, decrease, distortion, or change. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Source)
Here we see that the Qur'an is also preserved in the Preserved Tablet from being corrupted and this strongly raises the possibility that this is what Ibn Abbaas was referring to when he made (assuming that he did) that statement. His intention was to say that the speech of God is in the Preserved Tablet (including the original Torah and Gospel) and cannot be changed.
We must conclude by saying that the authentic narrations clearly indicate that Ibn Abbaas supported textual corruption and that one narration whose chain of transmission we cannot even examine should not be a cause for us to doubt that position of Ibn Abbaas.
Uthman Ibn 'Affan (d. 34 A.H.)
Ibn Kathir reports Uthman Ibn 'Affan as saying...
لِأَنَّهُمْ حَرَّفُوا التَّوْرَاة زَادُوا
فِيهَا مَا أَحَبُّوا وَمَحَوْا مِنْهَا مَا يَكْرَهُونَ وَمَحَوْا اِسْم
مُحَمَّد - صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - مِنْ التَّوْرَاة وَلِذَلِكَ غَضِبَ اللَّه
Because they (the Jews) distorted the Torah. They
added to it what they liked and erased from it what they hated and they
erased the name of Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah and for that Allah became angry. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 2:79, Source)
Uthman's position is crystal clear and needs no interpretation. He clearly supported the view that the Jews textually corrupted their scriptures.
Conversation of Umar ibn Al Khattab (d. 22 A.H.)
The following narration tells us about a conversation that Umar ibn Al Khattab once had with a Jew...
ان
مسلما ويهوديا اختصما إلى عمر رضى الله عنه فرأى الحق لليهودي فقضى له عمر
به فقال له اليهودي والله لقد قضيت بالحق فضربه عمر بالدرة قال وما يدريك فقال اليهودي والله إنا نجد في التوراة ليس قاضي يقضي بالحق إلا كان عن يمينه ملك وعن شماله ملك يسددانه ويوفقانه للحق ما دام مع الحق عرجا وتركاه
Sa'eed
ibn Al Museeb narrated that it happened that a Muslim and a Jew had a
dispute so they went to Umar bin Al-Khattab to judge between them. Umar
bin Al-khattab ruled in favor for the Jew, which upon the Jew said: "I
swear by Allah, you have judged with the Truth". Umar bin Al-khattab hit
the man with a stick that has a small ball on the top of it when he
heard him saying that. Then Umar bin Al-khattab asked the Jew, "How do
you know that I judged with the truth?" The Jew replied, "We find
in the Torah that whoever judges according to the truth two angels from
his right and left sides assist him to find the truth. Yet, if he went astray from the truth, they will leave him. (Al Munzhiri declared this narration to be authentic in Al Targheeb Wal Tarheeb, Volume 3, p. 188)
The Jew spoke about the two angels on the sides of the human being. Where is this to be found in today's Torah? It is not. This means it was removed. Thus indicating textual corruption.
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (d. 32 A.H.) Abdullah ibn Mas'ud is reported to have said...
عن
عبد الله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه قال يؤتى الرجل في قبره فيؤتى رجلاه فتقول
ليس لكم على ما قبلي سبيل كان يقرأ سورة الملك ثم يؤتى من قبل صدره أو قال
بطنه فيقول ليس لكم على ما قبلي سبيل كان يقرأ سورة الملك ثم يؤتي من قبل
رأسه فيقول ليس لكم على ما قبلي سبيل كان يقرأ في سورة الملك فهي المانعة
تمنع عذاب القبر وهي في التوراة سورة الملك من قرأها في ليلة فقد أكثر وأطيب الراوي
"While
a person is in his grave, The first place to start with punishment is
his feet yet his feet prevent this punishment from happening by saying:
"You cannot punish me in anyway as this man always recited Sura
Al-Mulk". Thus, it (the punishment) approaches him from his chest
(stomach) side yet his chest prevents the punishments from happening by
saying: "You cannot harm or punish me as this man always recited Sura
Al-Mulk." Then the punishment of the grave turns to his head but his
head prevents this punishment from happening and says: "You cannot
punish me because this man always recited Sura Al-Mulk." This Sura is
indeed called the preventer that prevents the occurrence of punishment. It is stated in Torah that whoever recites Surah Al Mulk at night, he would be doing very good acts. (Hadith scholar, Al Munthiri declares this narration to be saheeh (authentic) or hasan (good) in his book Al Targheeb Wal Tarheeb, Volume 2, p. 320. Sheikh Albani also affirms the authenticity of this narration in Saheeh Al Targheeb, hadith no. 1475)
Abdullah ibn Salam (d. 43 A.H.)
Now we have to bear in mind that Abdullah ibn Salam was a very learned Rabbi and a scholar of the Torah before he came a Muslim...
Also in another narration...
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 546:
Narrated Anas
When 'Abdullah bin Salam heard the arrival of the Prophet at Medina, he came to him and said, "I am going to ask you about three things which nobody knows except a prophet: What is the first portent of the Hour? What will be the first meal taken by the people of Paradise? Why does a child resemble its father, and why does it resemble its maternal uncle" Allah's Apostle said, "Gabriel has just now told me of their answers." 'Abdullah said, "He (i.e. Gabriel), from amongst all the angels, is the enemy of the Jews." Allah's Apostle said, "The first portent of the Hour will be a fire that will bring together the people from the east to the west; the first meal of the people of Paradise will be Extra-lobe (caudate lobe) of fish-liver. As for the resemblance of the child to its parents: If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her." On that 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "I testify that you are the Apostle of Allah." 'Abdullah bin Salam further said, "O Allah's Apostle! The Jews are liars, and if they should come to know about my conversion to Islam before you ask them (about me), they would tell a lie about me." The Jews came to Allah's Apostle and 'Abdullah went inside the house. Allah's Apostle asked (the Jews), "What kind of man is 'Abdullah bin Salam amongst you?" They replied, "He is the most learned person amongst us, and the best amongst us, and the son of the best amongst us." Allah's Apostle said, "What do you think if he embraces Islam (will you do as he does)?" The Jews said, "May Allah save him from it." Then 'Abdullah bin Salam came out in front of them saying, "I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah." Thereupon they said, "He is the evilest among us, and the son of the evilest amongst us," and continued talking badly of him.
ما
كان حين فتحت نهاوند أصاب [ المسلمون ] سبايا من اليهود ، فأقبل رأس
الجالوت فتلقى سبايا اليهود ، فأصاب رجل من المسلمين جارية وضيئة صبيحة ،
فقال لي : هل لك أن تمشي معي إلى هذا الإنسان عسى أن يثمن لي في هذه
الجارية ، فانطلقت معه فدخلنا على شيخ مستكبر له ترجمان فقال لرجل معه : سل
هذه الجارية هل وقع عليها هذا العربي ؟ ورأيت أنه غار حين رأى حسنها ،
فراطنها بلسانه ففهمت الذي قال ، [ قال ] : فقلت له : لقد أثمت بما تجد في
كتابك بسؤالك هذه الجارية عما وراء ثيابها . فقال لي : كذبت ، وما يدريك ما
في كتابي ، قال : قلت: أنا أعلم بكتابك منك ، قال : أنت أعلم بكتابي مني ؟
! قلت : نعم ، أنا أعلم بكتابك منك ، قال : من هذا ؟ قالوا : عبد الله بن سلام
، قال : فانصرفت من عنده ذلك اليوم ، فأرسل إلي رسولا : لتأتيني بعزمة
وبعث إلي بدابة ، قال : فانطلقت إليه احتسابا رجاء أن يسلم ، فحبسني عنده
ثلاثة أيام أقرأ عليه التوراة ويبكي ، فقلت له : إنه والله لهو النبي الذي
تجدونه في كتابكم ، فقال لي : فكيف أصنع باليهود ؟ قال : قلت : إن اليهود
لن يغنوا عنك من الله شيئا ، فأبى أن يسلم ، وغلب عليه الشقاء
At
the time when the city of Nahwawnd had been had conquered by Muslims,
female Jewish prisoners were captured. The head chief of the Jews
arrived to free some of those prisoners. I was approached by a Muslim
who captured a beautiful Jewish female prisoner and asked me to go with
him hoping that someone would pay more to free this prisoner. So I
walked with him until we entered on an old arrogant man who has a
translator with him. The old man asked another man to ask the slave girl
whether the Arab man slept with her or not. I noticed that he envied
the Arab man for the beauty of the lady with him, so he talked with her
with their own language, which I understood. Upon that I said to him
"You have committed a sin and went against your book (Torah) by asking
her about her body and what is behind her clothes". He replied: "You are
lying! What do you know about my book?" I said: "I know your book
more than you do" The old man then replied: "You know it more than I
do?" I replied saying: "Yes I do". Then the old man asked about who I am
so he was told that it is Abdullah bin Sallam. Then I left that
old man later on that day. Then after a while that old man sent me
massage asking me to visit him. So I agreed hoping that he enters Islam.
I stayed with him for three days reciting Torah on him while he is
crying and weeping. I said to him: "I swear by Allah, he is the prophet
who you find his description in your book." He replied: "What will I do
if the Jews find out about me entering Islam." I said: "The Jewish will
not help you if Allah destines something for you." So he refused to
enter Islam after all that and he was meant to be doomed.(Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani declared this hadeeth authentic (saheeh mawquf) in Al Mataalib al 'Aalyah, Volume 4, no. 218)
So as we can see, Abdullah ibn Salam was very learned of the Torah. The following narration says the story of how Abdullah ibn Salam accepted Islam...
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 7:
'Abdullah bin Salam heard the news of the arrival of Allah's Apostle (at Medina) while he was on a farm collecting its fruits. So he came to the Prophet and said, 'I will ask you about three things which nobody knows unless he be a prophet. Firstly, what is the first portent of the Hour? What is the first meal of the people of Paradise? And what makes a baby look like its father or mother?'. The Prophet said, 'Just now Gabriel has informed me about that.'
'Abdullah
said, 'Gabriel?' The Prophet said, 'Yes.' 'Abdullah said, 'He, among
the angels is the enemy of the Jews.' On that the Prophet recited this
Holy Verse:-- 'Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel (let him die in his fury!)
for he has brought it (i.e. Qur'an) down to your heart by Allah's
permission.' (2.97) Then he added, 'As for the first portent of the
Hour, it will be a fire that will collect the people from the East to
West. And as for the first meal of the people of Paradise, it will be
the caudite (i.e. extra) lobe of the fish liver. And if a man's
discharge proceeded that of the woman, then the child resembles the
father, and if the woman's discharge proceeded that of the man, then the
child resembles the mother.'
Someone might argue back that the manuscripts that Christians have today in their possession predate the existence of Abdullah ibn Salam. But again, my argument does not imply that Abdullah ibn Salam had the true Torah with him. He could have received this information by oral traditions from the minority of righteous believers that knew the original contents of the Torah even though that they didn't have it with them in textual form. This is a possibility.
Either way, the argument is not whether the Islamic claim is true or not. The argument is that when us Muslims examine our Islamic teachings we come to realize that the Torah has been textually tampered with.
Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn al-'Aass (d. 63 A.H.)
The following narration shows us what Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn al-'Aass is reported to have said once during a conversation...
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 335:
Narrated Ata bin Yasar:
I
met Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As and asked him, "Tell me about the
description of Allah's Apostle which is mentioned in Torah (i.e. Old
Testament.") He replied, 'Yes. By Allah, he is described in Torah with
some of the qualities attributed to him in the Quran as follows:
"O
Prophet ! We have sent you as a witness (for Allah's True religion) And
a giver of glad tidings (to the faithful believers), And a warner (to
the unbelievers) And guardian of the illiterates. You are My slave and
My messenger (i.e. Apostle). I have named you "Al-Mutawakkil" (who
depends upon Allah). You are neither discourteous, harsh Nor a
noise-maker in the markets And you do not do evil to those Who do evil
to you, but you deal With them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will
not let him (the Prophet) Die till he makes straight the crooked people
by making them say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,"
With which will be opened blind eyes And deaf ears and enveloped
hearts."
Evidence from the Statements of the Early Muslims
The early Muslims are a
very important source or religious authority to appeal to when it comes
to understanding Islam. The Prophet peace be upon him described the
early Muslim generations...
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 48, Number 819:
Narrated Zahdam bin Mudrab:
I heard Imran bin Husain saying, "The Prophet said, 'The best people are those living in my generation, then those coming after them, and then those coming after (the second generation)."
So we must appeal to the best of the Muslims and see how they understood Islam.
We will appeal to some of the early Muslims and see what their perspectives were regarding the Christian and Jewish scriptures.
Ka'b Al Ahbar (d. 14 A.H.)
Ka'b Al Ahbar was a prominent Rabbi who converted to Islam some years after the Prophet's death.
He is reported to have said in an authentic narration...
في
السطر الأول محمد رسول الله عبدي المختار لا فظ ولا غليظ ولا
صخاب في الأسواق ولا يجزي بالسيئة السيئة ولكن يعفو ويغفر مولده
بمكة وهجرته بطيبة وملكه بالشام
وفي السطر الثاني محمد رسول الله أمته الحمادون يحمدون الله في
السراء والضراء يحمدون الله في كل منزلة ويكبرون على كل شرف رعاة
الشمس يصلون الصلاة إذا جاء وقتها ولو كانوا على رأس كناسة ويأتزرون
على أوساطهم ويوضئون أطرافهم وأصواتهم بالليل في جو السماء كأصوات النحل
Ka'b
Al-Ahbar said: "The first line - of the Torah - says: Muhammad is the
Messenger of Allah and My chosen slave. Verily, he is neither rude nor
harsh. And he is a man who would not yell or scream in markets. And he
will never award an ill deed with an ill deed, on the contrary, he will,
always award ill deeds with forgiveness. He is birth will take place in
Mecca and his immigration will be to Taiba (one of the names of
Madinah) and his dominion will be the Sham (what is now known as
Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan).
The second line - of the Torah- says: "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. His nation are constantly praising, they praise Allah for whatever occurs to them whether it is good or bad. They praise and thank Allah in every situation and glorify Allah while they stand on a place that is higher than floor. They are people who always watch the sun (to know prayer times) and pray each prayer on its time even if they were in a filthy place. They wear Izaar that they wrap around their waists. And they wash and cleanse their parts at nights and their voices during the time of night are like that of bees (referring to their prayers). (Sunan Al Daarimi, Kitab: Al Muqadima (The Introduction), Bab: Sifat Salatul Nabi Salla Allahu A'layhi Wassallam fi Al Kutub Qabl Ba'thuhu (The Chapter on the Characteristics of the Prophet peace be upon him in the Books Before His Coming), hadith no. 7, Source, This narration was authenticated by Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani in one of his fatwas (verdicts) over here. A very similar narration can also be found in Al Haakim's Mustadrak al Saheehayn, Volume 2, no. 614 and Ibn Asaakir also narrated it and Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani declared this narration to be sound in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2458)
The second line - of the Torah- says: "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. His nation are constantly praising, they praise Allah for whatever occurs to them whether it is good or bad. They praise and thank Allah in every situation and glorify Allah while they stand on a place that is higher than floor. They are people who always watch the sun (to know prayer times) and pray each prayer on its time even if they were in a filthy place. They wear Izaar that they wrap around their waists. And they wash and cleanse their parts at nights and their voices during the time of night are like that of bees (referring to their prayers). (Sunan Al Daarimi, Kitab: Al Muqadima (The Introduction), Bab: Sifat Salatul Nabi Salla Allahu A'layhi Wassallam fi Al Kutub Qabl Ba'thuhu (The Chapter on the Characteristics of the Prophet peace be upon him in the Books Before His Coming), hadith no. 7, Source, This narration was authenticated by Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani in one of his fatwas (verdicts) over here. A very similar narration can also be found in Al Haakim's Mustadrak al Saheehayn, Volume 2, no. 614 and Ibn Asaakir also narrated it and Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani declared this narration to be sound in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2458)
Here we see that Ka'b ibn Al Ahbar is giving descriptions of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah that we cannot find in today's Bibles. Some might argue that this narration is alluding to Isaiah 42, however if one compares the narration with the passage in Isaiah he would see that many traits are missing. (e.g. Ka'b mentions that the Prophets community will know how to pray by looking at the sun, yet this is not found in the Bible)
In another narration...
حدثنا عمرو بن عاصم حدثنا حماد بن سلمة عن عاصم بن بهدلة عن مغيث عن كعب قال
عليكم بالقرآن فإنه فهم العقل ونور الحكمة وينابيع العلم وأحدث الكتب بالرحمن عهدا وقال في التوراة يا محمد إني منزل عليك توراة حديثة تفتح فيها أعينا عميا وآذانا صما وقلوبا غلفا
عليكم بالقرآن فإنه فهم العقل ونور الحكمة وينابيع العلم وأحدث الكتب بالرحمن عهدا وقال في التوراة يا محمد إني منزل عليك توراة حديثة تفتح فيها أعينا عميا وآذانا صما وقلوبا غلفا
Ka'b
ibn Al Ahbar also states in one narration that God said in the Torah "O
Muhammad, I am revealing to you a new Torah with which you will open
the eyes of the blind, ears of the deaf and the sealed hearts. [(Sunan Al Daarimi, Hadith no. 3193, Source),
Hadith scholar, Hussain Salim Asad al-Darani in his book on the
evaluation of Musnad al Daarimi declared this narration's chain of
transmission to be Hasan (good). (See no. 3370, p. 2095)]
In another narration...
عن ابن عباس أنه
سأل كعبا : كيف تجد نعت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في التوراة ؟ قال كعب :
نجده محمد بن عبد الله ، يولد بمكة ، ويهاجر إلى طابة ، ويكون ملكه بالشام
Ibn
Abbaas asked Ka`b, "How do you find the description of the Prophet,
peace and blessings be upon him, in the Torah? He said, "We find him as
Muhammad Ibn `Abdullaah, he is born in Makkah, and he will migrate to
Taabah (another name for Madeenah), and his kingdom will be in the
Shaam". (Ibn Rajab stated that this was narrated from Ka'b through many chains in Rasaa'il Ibn Rajab, 3/191)
In another narration...
كعب قال : أجد في التوراة أن صلاة الجماعة تضاعف بعدد الرجال درجة ، إن كانوا مائة فمائة ، وإن كانوا ألفا فألف درجة
"I
find in the Torah that the congregational Salat (prayer) double by way
of the number of men by a degree, if there were one hundred then [it
doubles by] one-hundred, and if there were one-thousand then [it doubles
by] one-thousand degrees." (This hadeeth is authentic and could be found in Fathul Baari, number or page 4)
Here is a conversation that occurred between Ka'b and the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him...
Sunan Abu Dawud
Book 3, Number 1041:
Narrated AbuHurayrah:
The
Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: The best day on which the
sun has risen is Friday; on it Adam was created, on it he was expelled
(from Paradise), on it his contrition was accepted, on it he died, and
on it the Last Hour will take place. On Friday every beast is on the
lookout from dawn to sunrise in fear of the Last Hour, but not jinn and
men, and it contains a time at which no Muslim prays and asks anything
from Allah but He will give it to him. Ka'b said: That is one day every
year. So I said: It is on every Friday. Ka'b read the Torah and said: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) has spoken the truth. AbuHurayrah
said: I met Abdullah ibn Salam and told him of my meeting with Ka'b.
Abdullah ibn Salam said: I know what time it is. AbuHurayrah said: I
asked him to tell me about it. Abdullah ibn Salam said: It is at the
very end of Friday. I asked: How can it be when the Apostle of Allah
(peace_be_upon_him) has said: "No Muslim finds it while he is
praying...." and this is the moment when no prayer is offered. Abdullah
ibn Salam said: Has the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) not said:
"If anyone is seated waiting for the prayer, he is engaged in the prayer
until he observes it." I said: Yes, it is so. (Sheikh Al Albani declared this hadith authentic in Sunan Abu Dawud, hadith no. 1046)
Notice, how Ka'b read the Torah and affirms that what the Prophet peace be upon him stated was true. Notice that the Prophet peace be upon him states that Adam was created on a Friday. This is true for if one reads the creation account in Genesis he will see that Adam was created on the sixth day (being Friday). However, where in the Bible today do we find the following...
"and it contains a time at which no Muslim prays and asks anything from Allah but He will give it to him."
The Prophet peace be upon him said this regarding Friday. Where is this in the Bible? Ka'b has stated several things about the Prophet peace be upon him that was or should have been in the Torah during their time and it is not in the Bible today.
This is an indirect proof that the Bible has been textually corrupted.
Abul-`Aaliyah (d. 90 A.H.)
Abul-`Aaliyah was a great Imam of Tafseer during his time. Imam Tabari quotes Abul-`Aaliyah as saying...
هُوَ مَكْتُوب عِنْدهمْ فِي الْكِتَاب الْأَوَّل : يَا ابْن آدَم عَلِّمْ مَجَّانًا كَمَا عُلِّمْت مَجَّانًا
It
is written in the first book of their scripture (the Jews): "O son of
Adam teach for free just as you have been taught for free." (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 2:41, Source)
Muqatil bin Sulaiman (d. 150 A.H.)
Early Qur'anic commentator Muqatil bin Sulaiman says in his commentary on Surah 2, Verse 79...
رءوس اليهود بالمدينة محوا نعت محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم من التوراة، وكتبوا سوى نعته
The leaders of the Jews in Medina erased the descriptions and traits of Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah, and they wrote other traits and descriptions (Source)
Here we have an early
Muslim commentator of the Qur'an clearly speaking about textual
corruption of the Torah. He states that the descriptions of the Prophet
Muhammad peace be upon him were erased from the Torah. This clearly
shows that he believed that text from the Torah was removed. Then he
states that the Jews wrote other descriptions, which indicates that text
has been added to the Torah. Muhammad ibn Mansur al-Mahdi (d. 169 A.H.)
The Caliph Muhammad ibn Mansur al-Mahdi clearly told his critic, the patriarch Timothy, that the Bible had contained many prophecies about Muhammad but the People of the Book had corrupted their texts and they had removed the prophecies. (Timothy, p. 33 ff., cited here)
conversation of Abu Jafar al-Ma'mun ibn Harun (d. 218 A.H.)
Imam Al Qurtubi in his commentary on Surah 15, Verse 9 relates a lengthy story of how a Jew became a Muslim. This took place during the reign of Abu Jafar al-Ma'mun ibn Harun sometime in the early 800's (C.E.).
The Jew was asked about how he became a Muslim. He said that he once bought three copies of each of the scriptures: Torah, Gospel and Qur'an.
He took each one of these books and began to remove and add some text to the books. He then stated that he went to the Jews and Christians and tried selling to them the distorted books and they bought it. He then stated that he went to the Muslims and attempted to sell them the distorted Qur'anic copies but they discovered the additions and deletions and refused to buy them. He then stated that he was sure that God had protected the Qur'an and reached the conclusion that Islam was the true religion.
He told this story to the Muslim ruler al-Ma'mun at that time whom then acknowledged and blessed his decision.
This shows that the early Muslims at that time believed that the scriptures of the Jews and Christians were textually corrupted and have not been preserved properly.
For the story, read Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi's, Tasfir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 15:9, Source
Abu 'Uthman 'Amr b. Bahr al-Fuqaymi al-Basri al-Jahiz (d. 255 A.H.) Abu 'Uthman 'Amr b. Bahr al-Fuqaymi al-Basri al-Jahiz argues that both Christian transmission and exegesis are corrupt: "We are certain that he (Jesus) came with none except pure unity and monotheism - that is supported by reason - but not the Trinity. We know that the Christians are in error both on the side of transmission, and on the side of exegesis." (Abu 'Uthman Amru Ibn Bahr aj-Jahiz, Thalath Rasa'il, ed. by J. Finkel (Cairo, al-Salafiyya Press, 1926), p.143, cited here))
Sahl (d. ? A.H.)
رَوَى ابنُ سَعْدٍ بِسَنَدٍ حسنٍ عَنْ
سهلٍ مولى عتبة وَكَانَ نصرانياً فأسلم وَقَالَ: إنه مكتوب فِي الإنجيل:
"إنه لا قصير ولا طويل، أبيض، ذو ضفيرين، بَيْنَ كتفيه خاتم، يكثر
الاحتباء، ولا يقبل لصدقة، ويركب الحمار والبعير، ويحتلب الشاة، ويلبس
القميص مرقوعاً، ومن فَعَلَ ذَلِكَ فَقَدْ برئ منَ الكبرِ وَهُوَ يَفْعَلُ
ذَلِكَ، وَهُوَ مِنْ ذرية إِسْمَاعِيْل، اسمه أحْمَدُ".
Again I ask, where are these descriptions to be found in the Bible?
Ibn Sa'd reported on the authority of Sahl the master of Utba and he was a Christian who converted to Islam and he said: It is written in the Gospel (regarding Prophet Muhammad): "He is neither short nor tall, he is white, he has two braided locks of hair, between his two shoulders is a seal, he used to often sit while withholding his legs close to his chest, he does not accept charity, he rides a donkey and camel, and milk the sheep and he wears his shirt sowed" and whoever does this saves himself from arrogance and he (Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him) used to do this and he is from the lineage of Ishmael and his name is Ahmad. [This narration was authenticated by Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani in one of his fatwas (verdicts) over here by saying that the sanad (chain of transmission) was is hasan (good).]
Muslim Scholars
No doubt, no one understands this wonderful religion of Islam more than the scholars who dedicate their lives to studying it.
Abud-Dardaa
(radyAllaahu 'anhu) reported: "I heard the Messenger of Allaah
(sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) say: Whoever treads a path due to which
he seeks knowledge, Allaah will make him tread one of the paths towards
Paradise. And the angels lower their wings out of contentment for the
seeker of knowledge. And verily all those in the heavens and in the
earth, even the fish in the depths of the sea ask forgiveness for the
scholar. And verily, the virtue of the scholar over the worshipper
is like the virtue of the moon on the night of Al-Badr over all of the
stars. Indeed, the scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, for the prophets do not leave behind a dinar or a dirham for inheritance, but rather, they leave behind knowledge. So whoever takes hold of it, has acquired a large share (i.e. of inheritance).'" (Reported
by Abu Dawood, At-Tirmidhee and Ibn Hibbaan, and this is the wording
found in his collection, in abridged form. Al-Bukhaaree mentioned in his
Saheeh Collection in his Book of Knowledge, Chapter: Knowledge precedes
Speech and Action, the part from it: "The scholars are the inheritors
of the Prophets.", cited here)
It is funny how some Christians are bold enough to misquote or misrepresent our scholars. Take for instance this Christian...
On
the other hand, it would be quite unfair for us to suggest that all
Muslim scholars in the past and present have followed this procedure and
adopted this conclusion. Ibn Khaldun, Ar-Razi, al-Ghazzali, and Ibn
Taymiyya have honoured the integrity of the text of the Bible. (Theophilus, Dear Abdullah: First Letter, Source)
In
short, I suggest we will have to play by the same rules. Muslim doctors
who propagate that the Bible was corrupted also overlook that most
eminent Muslim theologians like at-Tabari (died AD 855), al-Bukhari
(died AD 870), as well as al-Ghazzali (died AD 1111) believed in the
authenticity of the (Greek) Gospel text. (Theophilus, Dear Abdullah: 2nd Letter, Source)
It is hilarious indeed that this Christian states that Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah was of the view that the Bible was not textuallycorrupted while Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a whole book talking about the corruption of the Christian and Jewish text. Ibn Taymiyyah is explicit on this matter. This will be shown later on below.
Imam Tabari and Imam Ar Razi are usual victims of the Christian missionaries who misrepresent their views. We will see more of this below.
As for Bukhari and Al Ghazaazali, I found no statements made by them that they supported the textual transmission of Bible. I also wasn't able to find any statements from them regarding what their views were. However, since the Christians initiated their claim, the burden of proof is on them.
We will first begin with the view of Imam Tabari...
Ibn Jarir al- Tabari (310 A.H.)
Imam Tabari says in his commentary on Surah 2:79...
يَعْنِي
بِذَلِكَ : الَّذِينَ حَرَّفُوا كِتَاب اللَّه مِنْ يَهُود بَنِي
إسْرَائِيل , وَكَتَبُوا كِتَابًا عَلَى مَا تَأَوَّلُوهُ مِنْ
تَأْوِيلَاتهمْ مُخَالِفًا لِمَا أَنَزَلَ اللَّه عَلَى نَبِيّه مُوسَى
صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , ثُمَّ بَاعُوهُ مِنْ قَوْم لَا عِلْم
لَهُمْ بِهَا وَلَا بِمَا فِي التَّوْرَاة جُهَّال بِمَا فِي كُتُب اللَّه لِطَلَبِ عَرْض مِنْ الدُّنْيَا خَسِيس
What
is meant by this: It is referring to those who distorted the book of
Allah from the Jews of Bani Israel, and they wrote a book on which they
put their interpretations in opposition to that which was revealed by
Allah to his Prophet Moses peace be upon him, then they sold it to a
people who have no knowledge of what is in it nor what is in the Torah
and are ignorant of what is in the books of Allah in order to gain
worthless materialistic benefits. (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 2:79, Source)
يُحَرِّفُونَ كَلَام رَبّهمْ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَهُ عَلَى نَبِيّهمْ مُوسَى صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , وَهُوَ التَّوْرَاة , فَيُبَدِّلُونَهُ وَيَكْتُبُونَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ غَيْر الَّذِي أَنْزَلَهُ اللَّه جَلَّ
وَعَزَّ عَلَى نَبِيّهمْ وَيَقُولُونَ لِجُهَّالِ النَّاس : هَذَا هُوَ
كَلَام اللَّه الَّذِي أَنْزَلَهُ عَلَى نَبِيّه مُوسَى صَلَّى اللَّه
عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَالتَّوْرَاة الَّتِي أَوْحَاهَا إِلَيْهِ
They distort the speech of their Lord, which He sent down to their Prophet Moses peace be upon him, and that is the Torah, they substitute it and write from their own hands other than what Allah has revealed to
their Prophet and they say to the ignorant ones of their people "This
is the speech of Allah that He sent down to His Prophet Moses peace be
upon him and the Torah that He revealed to him." (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 5:13, Source)
Now here, someone might argue that Imam Tabari did not believe that the actual Torah was textually corrupted. But that the Jews only wrote books of their own interpretations (e.g. Talmud) and then claimed it was from God.
First of all, we already have shown above that the Jews don't claim that the Talmud or any of their commentaries are from God.
Secondly, even if they did this doesn't mean that Imam Tabari didn't believe that the Jews also textually corrupted their Torah.
Imam Tabari elaborates more on his position in his commentary on Surah 2:42...
{
وَلَا تَلْبِسُوا الْحَقّ بِالْبَاطِلِ } قَالَ : الْحَقّ : التَّوْرَاة
الَّذِي أَنَزَلَ اللَّه عَلَى مُوسَى , وَالْبَاطِل : الَّذِي كَتَبُوهُ
بِأَيْدِيهِمْ
الْحَقّ
بِالْبَاطِلِ " فَرُوِيَ عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس وَغَيْره لَا تَخْلِطُوا مَا
عِنْدكُمْ مِنْ الْحَقّ فِي الْكِتَاب بِالْبَاطِلِ وَهُوَ التَّغْيِير
وَالتَّبْدِيل , وَقَالَ أَبُو الْعَالِيَة قَالَتْ الْيَهُود مُحَمَّد
مَبْعُوث وَلَكِنْ إِلَى غَيْرنَا فَإِقْرَارهمْ بِبَعْثِهِ حَقّ
وَجَحْدهمْ أَنَّهُ بُعِثَ إِلَيْهِمْ بَاطِل , وَقَالَ اِبْن زَيْد : الْمُرَاد
بِالْحَقِّ التَّوْرَاة وَالْبَاطِل مَا بَدَّلُوا فِيهَا مِنْ ذِكْر
مُحَمَّد عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام وَغَيْره وَقَالَ مُجَاهِد لَا تَخْلِطُوا
الْيَهُودِيَّة وَالنَّصْرَانِيَّة بِالْإِسْلَامِ , وَقَالَهُ قَتَادَة , وَقَدْ تَقَدَّمَ قُلْت : وَقَوْل اِبْن عَبَّاس أَصْوَب لِأَنَّهُ عَامّ فَيَدْخُل فِيهِ جَمِيع الْأَقْوَال وَاَللَّه الْمُسْتَعَان
Regarding
the verse 'Confound not truth with falsehood': The truth: it is the
Torah that Allah revealed to Moses. Falsehood: it is what they have
written from their own hands.... It
was reported that Ibn Abbaas and others said 'Do not mix the truth of
what you have in the Book with falsehood' and that is the changing and
substituting.
And
Abu Al A'alya said that the Jews said 'Muhammad has arisen but not from
amongst us' so their acknowledgement of his arising is truth but their
rejection of him is false, and Ibn Zayd said: What is intended by
'truth' is the Torah and 'falsehood' is what they substituted or changed
from it from the mentioning of Muhammad peace be upon him and other
issues. Mujahid said: Do not mix Judaism and Christianity with Islam,
and Qutada said that as well. I say (Tabari): The statement of Ibn Abbaas is more correct because it is more general and applies to the rest of the statements and Allah is the source of all strength. (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 2:42, Source)
Also, Ibn Kathir quotes Imam Tabari as saying...
Ibn
Jarir said, "The Qur'an is trustworthy over the Books that preceded it.
Therefore, whatever in these previous Books conforms to the Qur'an is
true, and whatever disagrees with the Qur'an is false.'' (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Source, You can also see Al Tabari saying this himself in his commentary on Surah 2:41)
Here we see that Imam Tabari is saying that the Qur'an is a criterion over the books before it (this includes the Christians and Jewish scriptures) and points out what is false and true in them. Clearly, Imam Tabari believed in the textual corruption of the books of the Christians and the Jews, otherwise he would not have uttered the last part of his statement 'and whatever disagrees with the Qur'an is false.'
Az-Zajjaj (d. 311 A.H.)
Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 373 A.H.), the well known Hanafi scholar in his commentary of the Qur'an known as Bahr al-'Ulum on Surah 2, verse 79 quotes Az-Zajjaj as saying...
وذلك أن رؤساء اليهود محوا نعت محمد - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ثم كتبوا غير نعته،
The leaders of the Jews erased the traits and descriptions of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, then they wrote things besides his traits and descriptions.
Notice how the word 'erased' is used and then the same people 'wrote' different descriptions of the Prophet to come. Az-Zajjaj clearly believed in the textual corruption of the Torah.
Al- Hasan ibn Ayyub (d. 378 A.H.)
Al- Hasan ibn Ayyub (d. 378 A.H.) said "We are in no doubt that the People of the Book have altered some of their words" (Ibn Taymiyyah, Aj-Jawab As-Sahih, vol. 2, p. 342, cited here))
Abu Raihan Muhammad Al-Biruni (d. 440 A.H.)
Abu Raihan Muhammad Al-Biruni who is more of a historian then an Islamic scholar per se and a contemporary of Ibn Hazm, concerned himself with the dating of Biblical events especially in the context of the Old Testament. He, too, asserted that the scriptures had been misunderstood by Christians, and that material corruption of the genuine text had taken place. (Al-Biruni, Al-Athar Al-Baqiyah, pp. 13 ff and p. 32 f., cited here))
Ibn Hazm (456 A.H.)
Ibn Hazm said...
We do not need to try hard to prove that the Gospels and all the books of the Christians did not come from God
or from the Messiah (peace be upon him), as we needed to do with regard
to the Torah and the books attributed to the Prophets that the Jews
have, because the Jews claim that the Torah that they have was revealed
from God to Moosa, so we needed to establish proof that this claim of
theirs is false. With regard to the Christians, they have taken care of
the issue themselves, because they do not believe that the Gospels were
revealed from God to the Messiah, or that the Messiah brought them,
rather all of them from first to last, peasants and kings, Nestorians,
Jacobites, Maronites and Orthodox are all agreed that there are four
historical accounts written by four known men at different times. The
first of them is the account written by Matthew the Levite who was a
disciple of the Messiah, nine years after the Messiah was taken up into
heaven. He wrote it in Hebrew in Judaea in Palestine, and it filled
approximately twenty-eight pages in a medium-sized script. The next
account was written by Mark, a disciple of Simon ben Yuna, who was
called Peter, twenty-two years after the Messiah was taken up into
heaven. He wrote it in Greek in Antioch in the land of the Byzantines.
They say that the Simon mentioned is the one who wrote it, and then he
erased his name from the beginning of it and attributed it to his
disciple Mark. It filled twenty-four pages written in a medium-sized
script. This Simon was a disciple of the Messiah. The third account
written was that of Luke, a physician of Antioch who was also a disciple
of Simon Peter. He wrote it in Greek after Mark had written his
account, and is similar in length to the Gospel of Matthew. The fourth
account was written by John the son of Zebedee, another disciple of the
Messiah, sixty-odd years after the Messiah has been taken up into
heaven. He wrote it in Greek, and it filled twenty-four pages in a
medium-sized script. (Ibn Hazm, Al-Fasl fi'l Milal, Volume 2, p. 2, cited here)
With
regard to the Christians, there is no dispute among them or anyone else
that only one hundred and twenty men believed in the Messiah during his
lifetime. and all of those who believed in him concealed themselves and
were afraid during his lifetime and afterwards; they called people to
his religion in secret and none of them disclosed himself or practiced
his religion openly, because any of them who was caught was executed.
They
continued in this manner, not showing themselves at all, and they had
no place where they were safe for three hundred years after the Messiah
was taken up into heaven.
During
this time, the Gospel that had been revealed from Allaah disappeared,
apart from a few verses, which Allaah preserved as proof against them
and as a rebuke to them, as we have mentioned. Then when the Emperor
Constantine became a Christian, then the Christians prevailed and
started to practice their religion openly and assemble in safety.
If
a religion is like this, with its followers practicing it in secret and
living in constant fear of the sword, it is impossible for things to be
transmitted soundly via a continuous chain of narrators and its
followers cannot protect it or prevent it from being distorted. (Ibn Hazm, Al-Fasl fi'l Milal, Volume 2, p. 4-5, cited here)
Ibn Hazm also states that both Christians and Jews necessarily have both truth and falsehood in their books. (Ibn Hazm, Al-Fasl fi'l Milal, vol.2, p. 11, cited here)
Ibn Hazm's perspective is clear and needs no elaboration.
Abu Muhammad Husayn b. Mas'ud ibn Muhammad al-Farra' al-Baghawi (d. 516 A.H.)
Al Baghawi in his famous Qur'anic commentary Ma'alim at-Tanzeel, while commenting on Surah 2, Verse 79 clearly talks about how there was a certain description of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him in the Torah and then the Jews went and wrote something else besides it and changed his description. (See here)
This clearly shows that Al Baghawi believed that the Jews textually corrupted their scriptures by meddling with the description of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him in the Torah.
Az-Zamakhshari (d. 538 A.H.)
Imam az-Zamakhshari said...
The Qur'an claims to be a confirmation, protector and touchstone of the Truth contained in the Torah and Gospel. (Az-Zamakhshari, op. cit., vol.2, p.575, cited here)
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 A.H.)
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi has perhaps been the most misrepresented scholar on the issue by Christian missionaries. They quote him in many parts of his commentary in which he says that he doesn't believe that the specific verse in question is not speaking about textual corruption of the scripture but only distorting its interpretation and then they falsely conclude that Imam ar-Razi did not support the idea of textual corruption at all. What these missionaries forget to realize is that one must look at ALL of Imam Razi's statements in his famous commentary on the Qur'an in order to see truly what his position was regarding the Christian and Jewish scriptures.
First of all we have to realize that Imam ar-Razi condemned certain parts of the Gospel...
Imam
ar-Razi in his book Al-Matalib Al-'Aliya in the section on Prophethood
says: "The influence of the original teachings of Jesus was very limited
because he never preached the doctrine which the Christians ascribe to
him. The idea of Father and so and the notion of Trinity are the worst kind of atheism and polytheism and are certainly the result of ignorance.
Such heretical teachings can't be ascribed to a great prophet like
Jesus who was free of all such sinful errors. We are therefore certain
that Jesus could have not preached this impure doctrine. He originally
taught monotheism but not Trinity as the Christians assert. These
teachings of Jesus did not (widely) spread owing to many historical
factors. His message thus remained very limited." (Cited here)
Imam ar-Razi said else where...
As for the third evidence it is with reference to what is maintained in the Torah and gospels concerning the Prophethood of Muhammad.
The objection to this evidence (on the Jewish and Christian side) is
whether you (Muslims) say that the description of Muhammad was written
in these books in detail; namely that Allah Almighty, made manifest that
he shall come in the coming years and in such and such country, a
person whose description shall be such and such, and so know you that he
is my messenger. On the one hand; or they say: 'No, but rather Allah
has merely referred to him briefly, without specification due to time,
place or personality.' And so if you hold on to the first claim it false
and faulty: (O, you Muslims.)"
That
is because we (Jews and Christians) find that the T and the G are empty
of such claims; and must not be said that the Jews and the Christians
have compared two scriptures; because we (Jews and Christians) say that
these two scriptures and well-known in the east and the west; and such
as these books cannot, in any way be overtaken by corruption exactly as
in the case of the Qur'an. Alternatively: If you (Muslims) hold on to
the second claim, even if we suppose that you are right to hold that
view, then this cannot be taken as a proof in support of Prophethood; or
perhaps it may only allude the coming of a virtuous and noble person.
Or even if it is alluding to a Prophethood, it is not necessarily
indicating the Prophethood of Muhammad, since it may also foretell the
advent of another messenger, other than Muhammad. (Fakhar ad-Din ar-Razi, Muhassal Afkar Al-Mutaqadimin Wal Mut'akhrin (Cairo, Maktabat al-Kuliyyat al-Azhariyya) p. 211 and Fakhr ar-Razi, Mafatih Al-Ghayb, Cairo, Dar al-Ghad al-'Arabi, 1412 A.H. 1991 A.D. vol.3, pp.186 f, vol.9, 233, cited here)
Notice that Imam ar-Razi said...
it is with reference to what is maintained in the Torah and Gospels concerning the Prophethood of Muhammad.
Imam ar-Razi in his commentary on Surah 4, verse 46 makes it crystal clear that he supported textual corruption of the previous scriptures...
{
يُحَرّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } معناه: أنهم يذكرون التأويلات
الفاسدة لتلك النصوص، وليس فيه بيان أنهم يخرجون تلك اللفظة من الكتاب.
وأما الآية المذكورة في سورة المائدة، فهي دالة على أنهم جمعوا بين الأمرين، فكانوا يذكرون التأويلات الفاسدة، وكانوا يخرجون اللفظ أيضا من الكتاب، فقوله: { يُحَرّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ } إشارة إلى التأويل الباطل وقوله: { مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ } إشارة إلى إخراجه عن الكتاب
In
regards to Allah's statement "They pervert the words from their proper
places" (Surah 4:46), it means that they mention the corrupted
interpretations for those verses, and there is no proof that they take
the actual statements out of the book.
And
as for the verse in Surah 5:41, this is evidence that they have
combined between the two (textual corruption and misinterpreting the
text), they used to mention their corrupted interpretations, and they also used to remove the statements from the book.
Allah's statement "They pervert words" indicates misinterpreting the
text and Allah's statement "after their being put in their right places"
indicates that the statements were removed from the book. (Fakhar ad-Din ar-Razi, Tafsir Al Kabir, Commentary on Surah 4:46, Source)
Imam ar-Razi has spoken and made it clear. Yes indeed, Imam ar-Razi at times has said that certain verses like Surah 4:46 does not indicate textual corruption but only misinterpreting the text. However, we must not forget that Imam ar-Razi has also stated that verses such as Surah 5:41 do teach that textual corruption has been made. Case closed.
The View of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H.)
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said:
With
regard to the Gospels that the Christians have, there are four Gospels,
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are agreed that Luke and Mark did
not see the Messiah; rather he was seen by Matthew and John. These four
accounts that they call the Gospel, and they call each one of them a
Gospel, were written by these men after the Messiah had been taken up
into heaven. They did not say that they are the word of God or that the
Messiah conveyed them from God, rather they narrated some of the words
of the Messiah and some of his deeds and miracles. (Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Jawaab al-Saheeh, (3:21), cited here)
Ibn Kathir, the student/disciple of Ibn Taimiyyah, says:
Our Sheikh the notable Imam Abul-'Abbas Ibn Taimiyyah said: As
for those who argued that it [the Torah] is entirely corrupted from
beginning to end without sparing one letter, they are mistaken. Also,
those who argued that nothing has been corrupted are mistaken. The truth
is that alteration and change had reached it and they [the Jews]
manipulated its words with additions and omissions as they manipulated
its meanings. This is well recognized on pondering and may be explained
in another occasion, and Allah knows best.... (Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, Volume 2, pages 152-153)
Clearly Ibn Taymiyyah does not believe that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the Gospels that were revealed by Allah. Thus believing that the original and true Gospel has been textually corrupted.
Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah's famous book al-Jawaab al-Saheeh in refuting the Christians could be read here.
al-Qurtubi (d. 671 A.H.)
Imam al-Qurtubi states in his commentary on Surah 2:211...
لِكَوْنِهِمْ بَدَّلُوا مَا فِي كُتُبهمْ وَجَحَدُوا أَمْر مُحَمَّد صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
For they have replaced what is in their books and abandoned the command of Muhammad peace be upon him. (Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi's, Tasfir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 2:211, Source)
Imam al-Qurtubi also states in his commentary on Surah 5:13...
وَقِيلَ : مَعْنَاهُ يُبَدِّلُونَ حُرُوفه
And it is said that they changed its letters. (Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi's, Tasfir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 5:13, Source)
The
book which is in the hands of the Christians and which they call the
Injil (Gospel) is not that of which God says, "And He Has Sent Down The
Torah and Injil..." (Surah 3:3) (Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi, Maqami Hamat As-Sulban Wa Marati Rawdat Al-Iman, ed. by Muhammad Abd al-Ghani Shama, (Cairo, al-Madani, n.d.), pp.183, cited here)
Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah agrees with this position in his book al-Jawaab al-Saheeh, Vol.1, pp.5, cited here.
Also, Abu al-Fadl al-S'udi al-Maliki (d. 942 A.H.) agrees with this position as well in his book Al Muntakhab Al Jalil Min Takhjil Man Harrafa Al-Injil, (Cairo, al-Tamadun, 1322 A.H.), pp.14, cited here.
Imam Qurtubi explicitly states that the corruption was with the letters (indicating textual corruption) and states that the Gospel in the possession of the Christians is not the one in which Allah claims to have revealed in the Qur'an. Therefore, clearly stating that the text of the Gospel that the Christians have is not the same as what Allah has revealed. Thus, Imam Qurtubi is clearly stating that he believes that the text of the Gospel has been textually corrupted.
Sulaiman ibn Abdul-Qawi al-Tufi (d. 716 A.H.)
Sulaiman ibn Abdul-Qawi al-Tufi, the student/disciple of Ibn Taimiyyah, notes:
Be acknowledged that these Scriptures [of Jews and Christians] are unreliable because we consider them corrupted and changed. Yes, alteration have not involved them entirely, but reached them after all. That is why our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: (( Do not believe the People of the Book and do not deny them. Say: "We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you. Our God and your God is One, and to Him we have submitted.'')).
He prohibited believing them for fear of that they may tell us something that is definitely corrupted, and disbelieving them for fear of that it may be not corrupted. (Sulaiman ibn Abdul-Qawi al-Tufi, Al-Intesarat Al-Islamiyyah, 1/230-232)
and says:
Moreover, the same way they [i.e., Jews and Christians] do not consider our Book reliable, we do not consider their Books reliable. This is actually prior because their Books are older and much subjected to mistranslation on the contrary of our Book. (Ibid., 1/232)
and says:
Additions and omissions do not reach it [the Qur'an] on the contrary of the Torah and the Injil as I have seen myself in the two Scriptures regarding contradiction and discrepency and noted in my commentary on the two Scriptures. (Ibid., 1/294)
and says:
We
believe that the Qur'an is the truth, and the Torah whom you use
against us, not the one given to Moses, is falsehood and fabrication. (Ibid., 1/341)
and says:
The general answer is lack of trust in these Scriptures due to their antiquity, translation from one language to another and suspicion in honesty of Jews and Christians [in preservation] especially regarding the Injil for I explained in my commentary on it our excuses of non-trust in it concerning difference and contradiction. (Ibid., 1/350)
Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.)
Ibn Kathir states in his commentary on Surah 5:15...
Now
has come to you Our Messenger explaining to you much of that which you
used to hide from the Scripture and passing over much.) So the Prophet
explained where they altered, distorted, changed and lied about Allah.
He also ignored much of what they changed, since it would not bring
about any benefit if it was explained. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Source)
Ibn Kathir also says...
(but a confirmation of that which was before it) in reference to the previously revealed Divine Books, by which this Qur'an testifies to the true parts that remain in them and denies and refutes the forged parts that were added, changed and falsified by people. The Qur'an accepts or abrogates whatever Allah wills of these Books, (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Source)Ibn Kathir also states the following regarding a certain aspect of the story of Adam in the Bible...
This story in the Old Testament is a falsification and deception. (Ibn Kathir, The Stories of the Prophets, Chapter on Prophet Adam, Source)
Ibn Kathir also said:
I
[Ibn Kathir] say: As for the Arabic Torah in their hands, no sane
person doubts its alteration, textual corruption, change of stories and
words, additions and obvious clear omissions. Glaring lies and extreme
errors are so abundant in it. As regards what they recite with their
tongues and write with their pens, we have no access to, but it is
assumed they are dishonest liars who frequently invent forgeries against
Allah, His Messengers and Books.
As for Christians, their four Gospels on authority of Marks, Luke, Matthew and John are much more divergent and different by addition and omission than the Torah. They disobeyed the rulings of the Torah and the Injil in so many things they legalized for themselves. (Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, Volume 2, pages 152-153)
As for Christians, their four Gospels on authority of Marks, Luke, Matthew and John are much more divergent and different by addition and omission than the Torah. They disobeyed the rulings of the Torah and the Injil in so many things they legalized for themselves. (Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, Volume 2, pages 152-153)
Ibn Kathir's statements cannot get any clearer. He declared a story found in the Old Testament to be a forgery. Since the story is found in the text of the Old Testament and it is declared a forgery then clearly Ibn Kathir believed that the text of the Jewish scripture was corrupted.
Jalalayn (al-Mahilli d. 864 A.H.; as-Suyuti 911 A.H.)
As-Suyuti says in his commentary on Surah 2:79...
وَهُمْ الْيَهُود غَيَّرُوا صِفَة النَّبِيّ فِي التَّوْرَاة وَآيَة الرَّجْم وَغَيْرهمَا وَكَتَبُوهَا عَلَى خِلَاف مَا أُنْزِلَ
And they are the Jews who changed the traits and descriptions of the Prophet in the Torah and the verse on stoning. They changed them and wrote in contrast to what has been revealed. (Jalal ud-Din Siyuti, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 2:79, Source)
Clearly as-Suyuti believed that the Jews meddled with the descriptions of the Prophet in the Torah and then wrote things in contrast to them. as- Suyuti is clearly speaking about textual corruption of the Torah by the Jews in regards to the Prophet's traits and descriptions.
Conclusion
After
appealing to the Qur'an, authentic traditions of the Prophet, his
companions, early Muslims and greatest Muslim scholars we come to the
conclusion that Islam does endorse directly and indirectly the textual
corruption of the Torah and Gospel. There is no other source of
religious Islamic authority one can go to. The issue is clear and
Christian missionaries who are sincere and are truth seekers should stop
using these out dated kind of arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)