Ibn Qayyim on Biblical Preservation

In this post I quote a different source for the statements of one of Ibn Taymiyyah’s premiere students, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, on the Muslim scholarly views concerning the preservation of the Torah.

Chapter Thirteen: On the Devil’s Schemes Against the Son of Adam 

Chapter: People have differed in their opinions regarding the Torah in their possession, whether it has been altered or interpreted. There are three opinions on this matter.

The first and the last messengers, and that was like two men, one of whom told a story based on eyewitness accounts, then another came from a different country and region, such that we know that he did not meet with him, nor did he receive it from him, nor from anyone who received it from him, and he told the same thing as the first one, so the listener is forced to believe the first and the second.

The second meaning Is that he did not come to deny the prophets who came before him, and to belittle them, as kings who conquer people do to the kings who came before them. Rather, he came to confirm them, and to bear witness to their prophethood. If he had been a liar, a fabricator, and an innovator of his own policy, he would not have confirmed those who came before him, but rather he would have belittled them and attacked them, as the enemies of the prophets do.

People have differed in their opinions regarding the Torah that is in their hands: Is it altered? Or did the alteration and distortion occur in the interpretation without the revelation? There are three opinions: two extremes and a middle ground.

Then a group went too far and claimed that all or most of it was altered and changed, and that it was not the Torah that God Almighty revealed to Moses, peace be upon him. These people were exposed to its contradictions and the fact that some of it contradicted each other.

Some of them went to extremes, permitting the use of it for cleansing after urination.

Another group of scholars of Hadith, jurisprudence, and theology countered them, saying: Rather, the alteration occurred in the interpretation, not in the revelation itself.

This is the view of Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari, who said in his Sahih.(1)

They remove the word “book” from the books of God Almighty, but they distort it: they interpret it in a way other than its true interpretation.

(1) (13/522) with the opening. (Ibn al-Qayyim, The Book of Relief for the Distressed from the Snares of Satan – Ataaat Al-Ilm Edition: https://shamela.ws/book/18612/1178)

One group says that the distortion occurred through interpretation, not in the revelation itself, and their evidence for this is...

They remove the word “book” from the books of God Almighty, but they distort it: they interpret it in a way other than its true interpretation.

This is the choice of Al-Razi in his “Interpretation” (1).

I heard our sheikh say: A dispute arose in this matter between some of the virtuous people, and he chose this school of thought and weakened the others, so he was denounced, and he brought them fifteen narrations on this matter.

One of their arguments is that the Torah has been applied to the east and west of the earth, and has spread south and north, and only God Almighty knows the number of its copies. It is impossible for there to be collusion to alter and change all of those copies, so that no copy remains on earth except that it has been altered and changed, and the change is on one method. This is something that reason rejects and testifies to its invalidity.

They said: God Almighty said to His Prophet arguing with the Jews using it: {Say, “Then bring the Torah and recite it, if you should be truthful.”} [Al Imran: 93].

They said: They agreed to abandon the obligation of stoning, and they could not change it from the Torah. Therefore, when they read it to the Prophet the reader placed his hand on the verse of stoning, so Abdullah bin Salam said to him: Lift your hand from the verse of stoning, so he lifted it, and it was visible underneath it. If they had changed the words of the Torah, this would have been one of the most important things they would have changed.

They said: Likewise, the attributes of the Prophet and his origin are very clear in the Torah, and they could not remove or change them. Rather, God Almighty condemned them for concealing it, and when they were confronted with evidence based on what is in the Torah regarding his description and attributes, they say: It is not him, and we are waiting for him.

(1)   Keys to the Unseen (11/187). (Ibid.: https://shamela.ws/book/18612/1179)

The third group says: The Torah has had additions and minor changes to its wording, but most of it remains as it was revealed, and the alterations are very slight. This is the view of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.

They said: Abu Dawud narrated in his Sunan (1) on the authority of Ibn Umar, who said: A group of Jews came and invited the Messenger of God to the Quff. He came to them in the house of the school, and they said: O Abu al-Qasim! A man from among us committed adultery with a woman, so judge. So they placed a cushion for the Messenger of God, and he sat on it, [175a] then he said: “Bring me the Torah.” So it was brought to him, and he removed the cushion from under him and placed the Torah on it, then he said: “I believe in you and in Him who revealed you. ” Then he said: “Bring me the most knowledgeable among you.” So a young man was brought… Then he mentioned the story of the stoning.

They said: If she had been altered and changed, he would not have placed her on the pillow, nor would he have said: “I believe in you.”

They said: God Almighty said: {And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His words, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.} [Al-An’am: 115], and the Torah is from His words.

They said: The evidence that the Jews concealed the description of the Messenger of God in the Torah, and prevented their children and common people from seeing it, is well known. And whoever among them saw it, they told him: It is not him.

This is some of what this group used as evidence.

A third group took a middle ground, saying: “Some additions have been made to it, and a few words have been changed, but most of it remains as it was revealed, and the alteration to it is very slight.”

(1) Sunan Abi Dawud (4451) via Hisham ibn Sa'd, on the authority of Zayd ibn Aslam, on the authority of Ibn 'Umar. It was also narrated by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (14/397) via Abi Dawud, and classed as hasan (good) by al-Albani in al-Irwa' (5/94). The origin of the hadith is in Sahih Muslim via Nafi', on the authority of Ibn 'Umar, and via 'Abdullah ibn Dinar, on the authority of Ibn 'Umar. See al-Bukhari (3635) and Muslim (1699). (Ibid.: https://shamela.ws/book/18612/1180#p1)

Further Reading

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah and the Text of the Torah

Revisiting the Issue of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah's Comments Regarding the Text of the Torah One More Time

Ibn Abbas on the corruption of Scripture

Did Ibn Abbas Believe that the Holy Bible was Corrupt?

Fakhr ad-Din Ar-Razi and his views on the inspired Scriptures