Part II - Does Hadith Endorse the Bible?
I will be extremely grateful for your responses to some of the points made at the following website:-
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/ibnabbas.html
-----------------------------
Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitaab Al-Tawheed, Baab Qawlu Allah Ta'ala, “Bal Huwa Qur'aanun Majeed, fi lawhin Mahfooth” (i.e. in Sahih al-Bukhari, Book “The Oneness of God”, the Chapter on Surat
Al-Borooj (no. 85), Verses 21, 22 saying, “Nay this is a Glorious Qur'an, (Inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved.”) we find in a footnote between 9.642 and 643:“They corrupt the word” means “they alter or change its meaning.” Yet no one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly. [... and he continues to speak about how the Qur'an is preserved ...]
Since Ibn Abbas' above reference to “They corrupt the word” quotes part of Sura 4:46, it is not only a commentary on Sura 85:22, but also on the meaning of the Quranic charge against the Jews of corrupting the scriptures. This strongly confirms the results of various investigations of the passages in the Qur'an that speak about the earlier scriptures”
-----------------------------
We also read comments in another article at answering-islam.org:-
http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/integrity.html
-----------------------------
I have no problem when it comes to Quranic verses, however the missionaries also quote some hadeeths and state that they endorse and authenticates their Bible. I will be grateful for your response to the following:-
-----------------------------
“The Integrity of the Bible according to the Hadith"
The Hadith also confirm the integrity and existence of the previous Scriptures. Thus, according to Mishkat ul-Masabih, Book I, Ch. VI:
Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, “In the last days there will be lying dajjals who will bring you traditions of which neither you nor your fathers have heard, so beware of them. They will neither lead you astray nor seduce you.” Muslim transmitted it.
He also said that the People of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and expound it in Arabic to the Muslims, so God's messenger said, “Neither believe nor disbelieve the people of the Book, but say, Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered” (Qur'an 2:136). Bukhari transmitted it.
Muhammad neither affirms nor denies the interpretation of the People of the Book. Nor does he comment on the actual content of the Tawrat. In his commentary on Bukhari Ayni explains that the Muslims were unable to know whether or not the interpretations given by the People of the Book really accorded with the Tawrat adding that confirming a lie or denying the truth provokes the wrath of God.
A further citation from Bukhari (Book, at-Tauhid), moreover, makes our choice even simpler. With reference to Qur'an 85: 21. 22, he cites ibn `Abbas's definition of yuharrifuna (“they corrupt”) as follows:
No one is able to efface a word from the Books of God, mighty and glorious. Rather “they corrupt it” means “they interpret it wrongly”.
In short, they do not corrupt the text itself but the meaning of the text. Here the Hadith, like the Qur'an, allows for the possibility of interpreting Scriptures falsely (tahrif-i ma'nawi), not for corrupting the actual text of the Scriptures (tahrif-i lafzi).
Somewhat similar are traditions found in Mishkat ul-Masabih, Book VIII, ch. I, p. 454; Book I, ch. VI, p. 49; Book XX, ch. I, p. 892:
Abu Huraira told that when God's messenger once asked Ubayy b. Ka'b how he recited in the course of the prayer and he recited Umm al-Qur'an, he said, “By Him in whose hand my soul is, nothing like it has been sent down in the Torah, the Injil, the Zabur, or the Qur'an and it is seven of the oft-repeated verses and the mighty Qur'an which I have been given.” Tirmidhi transmitted it.
Jabir told how 'Umar b. al-Khattab brought God's messenger a copy of the Torah saying,
“Messenger of God, this is a copy of the Torah.” When he received no reply he began to read to the obvious displeasure of God's messenger, so Abu Bakr said, “Confound you, do you not see how God's messenger is looking?” So 'Umar looked at God's messenger's face and said, “I seek refuge in God from the anger of God and His messenger. We are satisfied with God as Lord, with Islam as religion, and with Muhammad as Prophet.” Then God's messenger said, “By Him in whose hand Muhammad's soul is, were Moses to appear to you and you were to follow him and abandon me, you would err from the right way. Were he alive and came in touch with my prophetic mission he would follow me.” Darimi transmitted it.
Salman said he read in the Torah that the blessing of food consists in ablution after it, and when he mentioned that to the Prophet he said, “The blessing of food consists in ablution before it and ablution after it.” Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud transmitted it.
Here also Muhammad neither forbids the reading of the Tawrat nor denies its existence. His silence really confirms its existence.
Likewise, according to Mishkat ul-Masabih, Book XXVI, ch. XXIX, pp. 1371, 1372:
Khaithama b. Abu Sabra said: I came to Madina and asked God to grant me a good companion to sit with and He granted me Abu Huraira. I sat with him and told him I had asked God to grant me a good companion to sit with and that he suited me. He asked where I came from and I replied that I belonged to al-Kafa and had come desiring and seeking good. He then said, “Do you not have among you Sa'd b. Malik whose prayers are answered, Ibn Mas'ud who looked after God's messenger's water for ablution and sandals, Hudhaifa who was God's messenger's confidant, 'Ammar to whom God gave protection from the devil at the tongue of His Prophet, and Salman who was a believer in the two Books?” meaning the Injil and the Qur'an. Tirmidhi transmitted it.
It is beside the point that the reporter of this tradition identifies the two books (kitabain) as the Injil and the Qur'an rather than the Old Testament (Tawrat) and the New Testament (Injil). To the point is the fact that this tradition also assumes the existence of these Books, at least the Injil.
Yet, Muhammad clearly shows that they read the Tawrat and the Injil, not a corrupted or abrogated Tawrat or Injil. Perhaps he was referring to Arab Jews and Christians who could not understand the languages of the Tawrat and Injil. But was Waraqa bin Nawfal an exception?
Furthermore in the Mishkat ul-Masabih, Book XIII, ch. III, p. 667:
'Umar b. al-Khattab and Anas b. Malik reported God's messenger as saying that it is written in the Torah, “If anyone does not give his daughter in marriage when she reaches twelve and she commits sin, the guilt of that rests on him.” Baihaqi transmitted both traditions in Shu'ab al-Iman.
According to this passage, Muhammad has knowledge of the Tawrat and even quotes it. Moreover he indicates what is written in the Tawrat, not what was written in the Tawrat and is now corrupted or abrogated.
-----------------------------
Will be grateful for your responses to the above as well as if you can quote any hadiths, which state that the Christian scriptures are not completely intact.
Wassalam
Usman.
Reply
I really do not think any of the arguments in the referred article need to be analyzed in detail, as I really do not see their relevance with the issue of the corruption or the lack of it in the Bible.
The first argument is, in fact, a narration of an opinion ascribed to Ibn Abbas’ regarding the implication of the word “yuharrifoon”, as used in the Qur’an. According to this narration, Ibn Abbas (ra) is reported to have said that the word implies to change the context of a directive and thereby to alter its implication. I do agree with this part of the saying ascribed to Ibn Abbas (ra). However, according to the narration, Ibn Abbas (ra) continues to say that, in his opinion, none of the books revealed by God could be verbally altered or lost into oblivion, thus all alterations in these books, according to him, are restricted to incorrect interpretation. Bukhari, who has mentioned Ibn Abbas’ (ra) stated opinion, has, however, failed to mention any of the arguments on the basis of which Ibn Abbas (ra) may have developed or held this opinion. Furthermore, it also seems worth mentioning that the opinion ascribed to Ibn Abbas (ra) has been given without even a reference to the chain of narrators, who report this opinion from the companion of the Prophet (ra). Thus, in the absence of the chain of narrators as well as that of the arguments on the basis of which Ibn Abbas (ra) may have developed or ascribed to the stated opinion, it seems quite fruitless to give any arguments for or against accepting the said narrative to be accurate. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the most that can be derived from this narrative is that Ibn Abbas (ra) ascribed to the stated opinion regarding the Bible. This is not a saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) nor is it a part of Muslim beliefs. The opinion ascribed to Ibn Abbas (ra) may or may not be accurate.
As far as the remaining citations are concerned, their subject matter, besides the one already discussed above, are:
The Prophet (pbuh) directed the Muslims to neither affirm nor reject what they were informed by the People of the Book to be a part of God’s previous revelations;
Nothing like the Surah Al-Faatihah was revealed in any of the previous scriptures;
The Prophet (pbuh) expressed his disapproval when he saw Umar (ra) reading the Torah;
When Salman (ra), on the authority of the Torah, stated that the blessing of the food consists of performing ablution after it, the Prophet (pbuh) corrected him and said that the blessing of the food consisted of ablution before it as well as after it;
Salman is praised to have been a believer in the two books (including Injil);
The Prophet (pbuh) quotes from the Torah regarding marrying daughters at an early age[1];
I really do not know how do the stated points establish the authenticity of the Bible. The contention of the author of the referred writing is that the combination of the following facts (as referred in Hadith) establish the authenticity and the lack of corruption in the Bible:
Before the Qur’an, God had revealed the Torah and the Injil (i.e. the Gospel);
There were certain books, in the environment in which the Qur’an was revealed, which were known as the “Torah” and the “Injil”;
The Prophet (pbuh) directed the Muslims to neither affirm nor reject what the People of the Book told them to be a part of God’s previous revelations;
There were people who recited (or had previously recited) these books and were even praised for being believers in those books; and
The Prophet (pbuh) – in a completely unknown context – referred to any of the points mentioned in these books
I really fail to understand the relevance of the stated points with the result that has been derived from them. I am sure there must be some mistake in my understanding and perception of the author’s contention. The arguments, as you can see, are completely irrelevant with the conclusion that has been drawn from them. Please help me correct my understanding of the whole issue, as I am sure no reasonable person can have contended what I have understood from the article.
You write:
… if you can quote any hadiths, which state that the Christian scriptures are not completely intact.
My dear brother, the Muslims generally hold that the previous scriptures (including the Torah and the Injil) could not remain clear of alterations and variations not on the basis of any Hadith or any verse of the Qur’an. On the contrary, it is, in fact, the internal evidence of the Bible itself, combined with the fact that all that remains with us of the books that constitute the Bible are their translations and the translations of their translations (and so on) that forces the Muslims to adopt an attitude of ‘neither affirm nor reject’ what the Bible says. I am sure that any one who has an idea of the variations and alterations that can occur in the translation of a text as compared to the text itself, can easily understand why the Muslims do not hold the Bible to be reliable enough to consider it an unaltered word of God.
Thus, in my opinion, just as there is no need to find evidence in the Qur’an or in the sayings ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) to support the contention that ‘when the sun is out, it is daytime’, as the issue is not one of religious belief, but one of common observation, in the same manner, the unreliability of the Bible does not require any support of the Qur’an or that of sayings ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). If the original text of the Biblical books are in tact and if they do not entail the internal inconsistencies which are found in the translations, then there is no need to contend that the Bible is corrupted. While if that is not the case, then the corruption and the alteration of the text is self-evident and does not need to be supported by any external evidence.
I would, however, like to add in the end that proving the Bible wrong has never been among my concerns. I am only interested in delivering the message of the Qur’an. The way I see it, proving the Bible wrong does not, by itself, prove Islam or the Qur’an to be correct. While if we do succeed in clarifying the Qur’an and in convincing a person that Mohammed (pbuh) is a true prophet of God, then the corruption or the lack of it in the Bible is immaterial. The mere fact that the person is convinced regarding the prophethood of Mohammed (pbuh) makes it obligatory upon him to believe in Mohammed (pbuh), merely because he came after all the other prophets.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Moiz Amjad Go to Part I - "Does the Qur'an Endorse the Bible?"
Use this "Home Page" link only if you have opened this page by following an external link, Otherwise you may simply Close this Window