The Qur'an Confirms
The Biblical Narrative
|
Table of Content | |
| Part Two | |
What Is The Torah?
This is another common self-denial presented by Muslims in their attempted defence of Islam.
The argument basically follows the line that it is the Revelation of the previous writtings that has been lost. And that the "Old Testament", and "New Testament" of Christianity are not the original "Books".
It is presumed that since the word "Bible" does not appear in the Quran, then what the Judeo-Christian communities commonly refer to as God's Word is not acceptable to the Muslims.
Yet, when we trace the word Bible back to it's origin, we discover that the word comes from the term biblia, meaning "books." And so, in time the collection became classified as the Book due to the fact that although the Bible consisted of 66 individual writings, the author was one, the Holy Spirit, having one unifying theme: the advent of God's Messiah-Deliverer.
The Book (Arabic- al-Kitab) of the Jews and Christians
"The Jews say, `The Christians are not (founded) upon anything.' And the Christians say, `The Jews are not (founded) upon anything.' And yet they read the Book." Sura 2:113
"It is not for a man to whom is given the Book and wisdom and prophecy that he should then say to people, `Be worshippers of me in place of God.' But rather, `Be true teachers (rabbáníyín), since you TEACH the BOOK and you STUDY IT EARNESTLY." Sura 3:79
So the Qur'an presumes the existence of an uncorrupted Book which both Jews and Christians study. The only Book in the hands of the Judeo-Christian community at the time was the Bible as it exists in its present form. And rather interestingly, the Arabic term used for the Bible is the same used in the Quran, al-Kitab al-Muqaddas, the Holy Book. Hence, the Book referred to in the Quran is the very Kitab used by Arab Christians during and after the time of Muhammad.
The Torah only referred to the five books of Moses
In both the Holy Bible and the Hadith the word is used in a generic sense to refer to the Old Testament as a whole. So again this is a total fabrication, or mis-understanding of modern Islam and Muslims.
For instance, the Mishkat al-Masabih cites several traditions (Book XXVI, Ch. XVIII, pp. 1232, 1233 and ch. XIX, p. 1244) which indicate that the Torah prophesies the coming of Muhammad:
Ata b. Yasar told that he met `Abdallah b. `Amr b. al-As and asked him to inform him of the description of God's messenger given in the Torah. He agreed, swearing by God that he was certainly described in the Torah by part of the description of him given in the Qur'an when it says,
"O prophet, We have sent you as a witness, a bearer of good tidings, and a warner, and a guard for the common people." (From Al-Ahzab 33:45 up to here. The following is from the Torah-Old Testament, Isaiah 42:1-3,6-7.) "You are my servant and my messenger; I have called you the one who trusts, not harsh or rough, nor loud-voiced in the streets. He will not repulse evil with evil, but will pardon and forgive, and God will not take him till He uses him to straighten the crooked creed so that people may say there is no god but God, and he opens thereby blind eyes, deaf ears and hardened hearts."
Bukhari transmitted it, and Darimi also gives something to the same effect on the authority of `Ata who gave as his authority Ibn Salam.
This citation from the "Torah" is found in Isaiah 42:1-3, 6-7, one of the Prophets. There is not one reference in the Torah of Moses matching this. This proves that at least in this Hadith the word "Torah" referred to more than the first five books of Moses.
Commenting on the preceding hadith, Ibn Kathir writes:
"... Al-Bukhari recorded it from 'Abdullah bin 'Amr. It was also recorded by Al-Bukhari [up to the word] forgoes. And he mentioned the narration of 'Abdullah bin 'Amr then he said: ‘It was common in the speech of our Salaf that they describe the Books of the People of the Two Scriptures as the Tawrah, as some Hadiths concur. Allah knows best.’" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 4, (Surat Al-Ar'af to the end of Surah Yunus), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: May
2000], p. 179;)
And so once again we are left with the Question is this the foundation of Truth or a continuing series of Self-denial ?
Changing Words
It seems that Islam and Muslims have assumed that “changing words from their context” implies that the previous scriptures have been tampered with. However, it seems to be lost on Islam that, even if this were the case this would only be referring to the Jews, and even then, not all of the Jews. For once again the Qur'an testifies that there were many from the People of the Book who wouldn’t deal falsely with God’s Word:
"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. Sura. 3:113-114
“Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth… After them succeeded an (evil) generation: They inherited the Book, but they chose (for themselves) the vanities of this world, saying (for excuse): ‘(Everything) will be forgiven us.’ (Even so), if similar vanities came their way, they would (again) seize them. Was not the covenant of the Book taken from them, that they would not ascribe to Allah anything but the truth? AND THEY STUDY WHAT IS IN THE BOOK. But best for the righteous is the home in the Hereafter. Will ye not understand? As to those WHO HOLD FAST BY THE BOOK and establish regular prayer, - never shall We suffer the reward of the righteous to perish.” Sura. 7:159, 169-170 A. Yusuf Ali - (capital emphases added)
This passage says nothing about changing words within the Scripture. In fact, when we consult the earliest Muslim views we soon discover that the Jews were accused of changing words by misinterpreting the text. In the words of early Muslim interpreter Ibn Kathir,
Then Allah informs us of the punishment He inflicted upon them when they violated His Covenant. Allah says,
Fact - Muslim scholars do not hold to such a view
Muhammad 'Abduh (Egypt) - the charge of corruption:
... makes no sense at all. It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria or Europe, would have been obvious.
Mawlawi Muhammad Sa'id (Pakistan):
Some Muslims imagine that the Injil is corrupted. But ... not even one among all the verses of the Qur'an mentions that the Injil or Tawrat is corrupted ... it is written that the Jews ... not the Christians ... alter the meaning of the passages from the Tawrat while they are explaining them. At least the Christians are completely exonerated from this charge. Hence the Injil is not corrupted and the Tawrat is not corrupted ...
Sayyid Ahmad Husayn Shawkat Mirthi:
The ordinary Muslim people ... believe through hearsay ... that the Injil is corrupted, even though they cannot indicate what passage was corrupted, when it was corrupted, and who corrupted it. Is there any religious community ... whose lot is so miserable that they would shred their heavenly Book with their own hands ...? To say that God has taken the Injil and the Tawrat into heaven and has abrogated them is to defame and slander God ...
Fact the Qur'an expressley states,
"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," Sura 3:3.
And in relation to the Words of Allah the Qur'an further states,
Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," Sura 6:34.
"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all," Sura 6:115.
Once again I am left with the question is this contention of Islam a solid foundation of Truth or a doubleminded denial of Muhammad and the Qur'an?
The Myth of Abbrogation
A major issue in Qur'anic interpretation is that of abrogation. Within the Qur'an itself are statements which offset others, but according to the doctrine of abrogation the later texts supersede the earlier whenever there are inconsistencies.
The Muslim argument is that the abrogated (superceded) verses were only meant for specific, temporary situations. The revelation of the Qur'an is grounded in the history of the life and career of Muhammad, so we find there is a progressive element in doctrine of Islam's holy book. Situations change and develop, and since the Qur'an reflects this, its teachings changed with the circumstance at hand.
At the most obvious level we can see this in the fact that in the early years of Islam, Muhammad was a minor preacher in Mecca, concerning himself with almost solely theological and moral/social issues, but when he moved to Medina, he became the Governmental Executive, and so his revelations began to address legal, political and economic matters.
The Qur'an attempts to explain the practice of abrogation by referring to the sovereignty of God.
Yusuf Ali says, (A. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary, Leicester, The Islamic Foundation, 1975 - 2.106)
The word which I have translated by the word 'revelations' is Ayat... It is not only used for verses of the Quran, but in a general sense for God's revelations, as in ii. 39 and for other Signs of God in history or nature, or miracles, as in ii. 61. It has even been used for human signs and tokens of wonder, as, for example, monuments or landmarks built by the ancient people of AD (xxvi. 128). What is the meaning here? If we take it in a general sense, it means tht God's Message from age to age is always the same, but that its Form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time. That form was different as given to Moses and then to Jesus and then to Muhammad. Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat of the Quran. There is nothing derogatory in this if we believe in progressive revelation. In iii. 7 we are told distinctly about the Quran, that some of its verses are basic or fundamental, and others are allegorical, and it is mischievous to treat the allegorical verses and follow them (literally). On the other hand, it is absurd to treat such a verse as ii. 115 as if it were abrogated by ii. 144 about the Qibla. We turn to the Qibla, but we do not believe that God is only in one place. He is everywhere.
As can be seen, some Muslims believe that this verse refers to Jewish and Christian Scriptures. However, it is not the only verse on this subject, and these others indicate what is involved is abrogation of the Qur'an.
Returning to Yusaf Ali; (16.101)
... The doctrine of progressive revelation from age to age and time to time does not mean that Allah's fundamental Law changes. It is not fair to charge a Prophet of Allah with forgery because the Message as revealed to him is in a different form from that revealed before, when the core of the Truth is the same, for it comes from Allah.
In the Hadith, we find reference to abrogation which specifically relates this practice to the Qur'an. Another text concerns Surah 2:106; a Qur'anic reciter was supposed to have memorised every revelation from Muhammad, so what was under consideration in this text was whether he should have deleted those verses which had been cancelled.
Finally, there are Hadith texts which settle the issue that abrogation relates to the Qur'an itself, rather than to the holy scriptures of the Jews and Christians (or anyone else for that matter). The Hadith illustrates our earlier point about the progressive character of Qur'anic revelation, and how an aspect of this related to the changed conditions of Muhammad after the Hegira. The classic example often used by Muslim exegetes to explain the mechanics of abrogation is found with respect to the widow's bequest.
To understand what this involves, we can examine the fact that Islam makes a great point in portraying itself as a 'mercy' to Mankind, and part of this is that it does not burden believers with too much ritual obligation. For example, Surah 73 begins in vs. 2 - 4, by commanding Believers to spend a considerable portion of the night in prayer, but ayah 20 abrogates this. Surah. 43:89 orders that polytheists be let alone, however, Surah. 2:190-191 commands that they be slaughtered.
The problem for Christians as they read the Qur'an, and Muslims as they attempt to deny the Qur'an and Muhammad is that the Qur'ans structure is unlike that of the Bible in this regard. The New Testament, because of the Sacrifice of Christ, 'abrogates' the Old Testament rulings on animal sacrifices, since the latter had a prophetic character which is now fulfilled; to a large extent, this is the message of Hebrews, 10:1.
On a similar basis, the kosher laws of the Old Testament are superseded by the declaration of Jesus in Mark 7:19 that all foods were now 'clean'.
In these cases, however, abrogation occurs because of prophetic fulfilment. This ending of food legislation and other aspects of the Law often seems so arbitrary to Muslims, and encourages them to believe that the Christians have tampered with their Scriptures.
Islam however does not understand the eschatological element involved. The structure of the Christian Scriptures, whereby the books that celebrated the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies, (the New Testament), in temporal terms obviously came later than the Old Testament texts, and the present Biblical structure, though arbitrary in terms of denoting the books as 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament', reflect the theological fact of the change that the Advent of Christ brought. Moreover, we are dealing with later books that abrogate aspects of the former books.
Nor is it simply a case that the Qur'an abrogates elements of the previous books. Rather, verses abrogate others in the same book, and the structure of the Qur'an does not reveal this, as the abrogated texts are not removed. Hence the need for instruction in the science of Qur'anic interpretation and the impact of the Sunnah. The fact that Christian 'abrogation' is of a different character to that of Islam is confusing to Muslims, and adds to the belief that the New Testament is fraudulent.
This is especially true when we consider the role that the Sunni-Shia dispute has played in this. The Shia deny that the rule on temporary marriage has been abrogated, and naturally consider the Sunni hadith abolishing the practice as being untrue. The Sunnis, on the other hand, regard the Shia as sinning by continuing the practice. It is not surprising that when Muslims accuse each other of corruption in issues of text and canon on issues affecting doctrine and practice, that they naturally accuse 'the nations before them' of similar actions when they discover differences with Islam.