Sahih al-Bukhari records Muhammads first cousin and close companion Ibn Abbas,
considered one of the greatest Islamic scholars of all time, making the claim that all of
Gods revealed Books remain uncorrupted. He is reported to have said that no person
is able to change any of the words from Gods Scriptures, but that they could distort
their meanings by misinterpreting them:
LV. The words of Allah Almighty, "It is indeed a Glorious Qur'an preserved
on a Tablet." (85:21-22)
"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 'Abbas said,
"Both good and evil are recorded," and "yuharrufuna" (4:46)
means "they remove". NO ONE REMOVES THE WORKS[sic] 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. (Aisha Bewley, Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, 100. Book
of Tawhid (the belief that Allah is One in His Essence, Attributes and Actions);
source;
capital and underline emphasis ours)
Renowned Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir cited al-Bukharis statements from Ibn Abbas
regarding the incorruptibility of the Holy Scriptures, as well as the view of another
Muslim who also believed that Gods Scriptures couldnt be corrupted:
Mujahid, Ash-Shabi, Al-Hassan, Qatadah and Ar-Rabi' bin Anas said that,
<who distort the Book with their tongues.>
means, "They alter (Allahs Words)."
Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and
add although none among Allahs creation CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS
BOOKS, THEY ALTER AND DISTORT THEIR APPARENT MEANINGS. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The
Tawrah and Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, AND NO LETTER IN THEM WAS REMOVED.
However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books
that they wrote themselves." Then,
<they say: "This is from Allah," but it is not from Allah;>
As for Allahs books, THEY ARE STILL PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE CHANGED."
Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement Tafsir Ibn Kathir Abridged, Volume
2, Parts 3, 4 & 5, Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, verse 147
[Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First
Edition: March 2000], p. 196; source;
bold and capital emphasis ours
It would seem pretty clear from the foregoing that the first Muslims (at least two
prominent ones) believed that the Scriptures that were revealed before the Quran such as
the Torah/Law of Moses and the Injil/Gospel of Jesus remained intact and uncorrupted.
But not everything is as it seems, for we find another narration from Imam Bukhari
where Ibn Abbas purportedly taught that Jews and Christians corrupted their Holy
Scriptures:
Narrated Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utba:
Ibn Abbas said, "O Muslims? How do you ask the people of the Scriptures, though your
Book (i.e. the Quran) which was revealed to His Prophet is the most recent information
from Allah and you recite it, the Book that has not been distorted? Allah has revealed to
you that the people of the scriptures have changed with their own hands what was revealed
to them and they have said (as regards their changed Scriptures): This is from Allah, in
order to get some worldly benefit thereby." Ibn Abbas added: "Isnt the
knowledge revealed to you sufficient to prevent you from asking them? By Allah I have
never seen any one of them asking (Muslims) about what has been revealed to you."
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48,
Number 850
Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin Abdullah:
Abdullah bin 'Abbas 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 Allahs 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. Wont 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." Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93,
Number 614;
see also Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)
It should not come as a surprise to the readers that Islamic apologists use this
specific narration to prove that the first Muslims did not hold to the textual integrity
of the Holy Bible.
This obviously presents us with a dilemma since we have two conflicting reports, both
of which are attributed to Ibn Abbas, presenting two contradictory views of the Holy
Bible.
There are several ways in which this dilemma can be resolved. The first is to simply
accept the fact that al-Bukhari has preserved two conflicting and contradictory traditions
regarding Ibn Abbas views of the previous Scriptures. This wouldnt be the only
place where al-Bukhari has narrated contradictory reports, some of which we will provide
at the conclusion of our discussion.
In light of this, it is the narration which best comports with what the Quran
actually teaches that should be accepted as genuine. Since the Quran explicitly
confirms the authority and preservation of the former Revelations, the Holy Bible
(*), this means that the narration where Ibn Abbas questions
the textual integrity of the previous Books must be rejected.
The other approach is to try to reconcile both of these conflicting reports so that
one narration doesnt cancel out the other, and there is a way that this can be done.
Note, for instance, what Ibn Abbas allegedly said:
You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the
people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it,
and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, It is from Allah, to
sell it for a little gain
The above citation seems to be referring to the following Quranic passage:
So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, and then say, This is from
Allah, that they may sell it for a little price. So woe to them for what their hands
have written, and woe to them for their earnings. S. 2:79
We have already demonstrated elsewhere (1;
2) that this specific passage in its respective
context is not speaking of Jews and Christians corrupting the text of the Holy Bible.
It refers to a specific group (not all) of unlettered Jews that were ignorant of
the content of the Scriptures who then went about falsifying their own revelation for
monetary gain. Ibn Kathir provides support for this exegesis from his quotation of
Wahb ibn Munabbih who said:
However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation,
relying on books that they wrote themselves
Wahb was aware that the People of the Book had written books which were used to
misguide others, and yet these books had no bearing on the textual integrity and
incorruptibility of the Law and the Gospel which he says can never be changed. This
supports the position that Sura 2:79 is referring to these uninspired books, not to
the books of the Holy Bible, which certain groups such as the Jews wrote by their own
authority.
It is also quite plausible that the book(s) that the author of the Quran had in mind
was material such as the Talmud, the codification of uninspired oral traditions which the
Jews claimed had Divine authority and sanction. The Qurans stance, if referring to
such sources, is similar to the position held by Jesus in regards to these uninspired
Jewish traditions:
"So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, Why dont your
disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with
"unclean" hands? He replied, Isaiah was right when he prophesied
about you hypocrites; as it is written: "These people honor me with their lips, but
their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules
taught by men." You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to
the traditions of men. And he said to them: You have a fine way
of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For
Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother," and, "Anyone who curses
his father or mother must be put to death." But you say that if a man says to his
father or mother: "Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is
Corban" (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for
his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you
have handed down. And you do many things like that." Mark 7:5-13
Christ speaks of the Jews nullifying Gods true Word through their interpretations
and traditions, which sounds quite like what the Quran is saying. The NT even warns
against traditions which contradict Gods revealed Word:
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,
which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on
Christ." Colossians 2:8
Even taking the worst-case scenario that this specific citation does refer to Biblical
tampering, this still wouldnt prove wholesale textual corruption. The reference
specifically says that only a party of them wrote false revelation and sold it for gain.
Yet at the same time the Quran says that there were others who would not allow the
revelation to be tampered with for the sake of monetary profit:
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. S. 3:199
Thus, these righteous individuals would serve as a check for the others since the
former would have uncorrupt copies of the Holy Scriptures in their possession by which
to detect any corruptions to the Biblical manuscripts. As Christian author and Islamic
scholar E.M. Wherry said:
The inference drawn by modern Muslims from passages like this, that, according to the
Quran the Jewish and Christian Scriptures have been corrupted, and are therefore no longer
credible, is entirely unjustifiable. Admitting the charge made here against certain Jews
to be true (and the Christian need not deny it), it proves nothing concerning the
text of present copies. On the contrary, the charge implies the existence, at that date,
of genuine copies. A Comprehensive Commentary On The Quran, Chapter II. Entitled
Surat Ul Baqr (The Cow)., p. 318; source
Another renowned Christian scholar of Islam, Sir William Muir, masterfully summed this all up:
The preceding context refers to ignorant persons who were acquainted only with
rabbinical glosses or foolish traditions. It would seem to be the same persons who are
here referred to as having written out such glosses or traditions, and then brought them
to Mahomet as possessed of divine authority, saying perhaps that they were just as binding
as the Scriptures themselves.
Al kitâb means literally "the writing," and not necessarily the
Jewish Scriptures. It may, however, be here taken as signifying "the Book";
viz., that which these ignorant Jews wished to be taken for the Scripture,or as
similar in authority with it.
The text, then, describes a class of ignorant Jews who opposed Mahomet; namely, those
who wrote out passages probably from their traditions, glosses, or rabbinical books, and
brought them forward as authoritative and divine;such glosses for instance as
"that stoning for adultery was not imperative according to the Mosaic Law"; or,
such as gave another interpretation to passages of the Old Testament which had been
appropriated by Mahomet's adherents as bearing out his claims to be the Prophet that
should arise. Therefore Mahomet cursed them for writing out that which was simply human in
its origin, and then producing it as if it was possessed of divine authority.
Thus Adul Câder, the Urdoo translator, in his commentary on the
verse:"These are they who, after their own desire, put things together, and
write them out for the common people, and then ascribe them to God or the prophet."
يهه وه لوك هين جو
عوام كو أنكي خوشي
موافق باتين جور
كر لكهه ديتى هين
اور نسبت كرتى هين
طرف خداكى يا رسول
كى
Baidhâwi thus explains the passage:"And perhaps there
is meant that which the Jews wrote out of commentaries (or interpretations)
about the punishment of the adulteress." 1
ولعله
أراد به ما كتبوه
من التأويلات
الزانية
Viewed thus, the allusion clearly is to the improper authority, either habitually, or
casually in the present instance, held by the Jewish opponents of Mahomet to attach
to the opinions and commentaries of their doctors. There is nothing that can be fairly
held to imply any tampering with, or interpolation of, the manuscripts of the Scriptures.
The Jews have in all ages been as noted for the scrupulous, and even superstitious, care
with which they have preserved the exact text of their sacred books, as the
Mahometans themselves for their care of the Corân. Their character in this respect is not
affected, nor does it appear that Mahomet intended to impugn it, by the very different
accusation that they brought forward the interpretations of their doctors, or
rabbinical traditions, or extracts copied from these, and alleged for them an authority
equal to that of the Scriptures. That the Jews attached an undue weight, as they
have from the earliest times, to the uninspired dicta of their, rabbins, does not imply
any defect of veneration, or any want of care, for the inspired Scriptures themselves.
It is, therefore, a gratuitous assumption that, because the Jews made copies of what
were merely human compositions, and then produced them before Mahomet as having a divine
authority, they in any way tampered with the sacred Scripture. Had they gone even further,
and having written out fabricated passages, fraudulently pretended in argument that they
were extracts from the Pentateuch (though such a construction of the text is not the
natural one), it would not even then have amounted to such a charge; it would not by any
means have implied that they altered or interpolated their copies of the Scripture.
The charge would in that case have resembled the one which follows in Art. CX., where by
"twisting their tongues," or by a deceptive mode of recitation, passages were
made to appear to belong to the Scriptures, which did not in reality. But such imputation,
like the present, is altogether a different charge from that of corrupting the Manuscripts
of the Old Testament.
NOTE, first; the accusation is addressed to the Jews of Medîna alone. Whatever
else may be its scope, it does not extend beyond them. For instance, no such
imputation is, in any verse of the Corân, ever hinted against the
Christians, or their Scriptures.
NOTE, second; the accusation, whatever it was, did not affect the confidence of
Mahomet in the genuineness and purity of the Old Testament as then in the hands of, and
current amongst, the Jews of Medîna. This is evident from the tenor of all the subsequent
passages in which the value and authority of the Scriptures are spoken of in as high,
unqualified, and unsuspecting terms as before. The Coran Its Composition and Teaching;
And the Testimony It Bears to the Holy Scriptures, pp. 141-144;
source; bold and underline emphasis ours)
Ibn Abbas may have also been referring to the following verse:
There is among them a section who distort the Book WITH THEIR TONGUES:
(As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part
of the Book; and they say, That is from Allah, but it is not from Allah.
It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! S. 3:78
Here, the changes and distortion refer to a misinterpretation of the text, i.e.
"with their tongues". The people were evidently reciting or quoting certain
things and passing it off as being part of the actual text. This view is in accord with
Al-Bukhari's citation of Ibn Abbas, where the latter stated that the people changed and
distorted the apparent meanings of the scriptures but the text still remained unchanged.
We can therefore conclude from the foregoing that Ibn Abbas (if in fact he actually
taught all that al-Bukhari attributed to him) was not claiming that the text of the Holy
Scriptures had been corrupted. Rather, Ibn Abbas was only referring to people changing
the text BY THEIR TONGUES, i.e. through their misinterpretation, and to books which were
written such as the Talmud which in no way impact the textual veracity of those list of
Biblical Books which both the Jews and Christians held in their possession.
Here now are some sahih (so-called sound) reports from al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim
which contradict each other.
First Contradiction
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
The Prophet was cupped while he was in the state of lhram, and also while he was observing
a fast. Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 31,
Number 159
The translator states:
Hadith No. 159 CONTRADICTS the Hadith of Al-Hasan. Apparently the
Muslim jurists have given VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS to discard THIS CONTRADICTION:
Ash-Shafii says, "Both Ahadith are correct, but the one narrated by Ibn
Abbas is stronger as regards its series of narrators; yet it is better to avoid
cupping while observing Saum (fast). But the verdict is to be taken from the Hadith
of Ibn Abbas. I have the knowledge that the Prophet's companions and their followers
and all Muslim scholars think that cupping does not break ones Saum
(fast)." Ibn Hazm thinks that Al-Hasans Hadith is INVALIDATED by another
authentic Hadith narrated by Abu Said which goes: "The Prophet permitted
cupping for a person observing Saum (fast)." Fath Al-Bari, Vol. 5,
Pages 79-81). (Al-Imam Zain-ud-Din Ahmad bin Abdul Lateef Az-Zubaidi, The Translation
of the Meanings of Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari Arabic-English, Translated by: Dr.
Muhammad Muhsin Khan [Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh Saudi
Arabia], p. 446; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Obviously, it would be more powerful to quote both hadiths. Here only one part of
the contradiction is actually quoted. The word contradiction is only found in a comment
by the translator, but the two contradictory pieces are not both seen side by side.
Second Contradiction
Did Muhammad wash only once or twice?
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet performed ablution by washing the body parts only once.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4,
Number 159
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Zaid:
The Prophet performed ablution by washing the body parts twice.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4,
Number 160
Third Contradiction
Did Muhammad see his Lord? Reports that say he didnt:
Narrated Masruq:
I said to 'Aisha, "O Mother! Did Prophet Muhammad see his Lord?" Aisha said,
"What you have said makes my hair stand on end! Know that if somebody tells you one
of the following three things, he is a liar: Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Lord,
is a liar." Then Aisha recited the Verse:
'No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is the Most Courteous
Well-Acquainted with all things.' (6.103) 'It is not fitting for a human being that Allah
should speak to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil.' (42.51) 'Aisha further
said, "And whoever tells you that the Prophet knows what is going to happen tomorrow,
is a liar." She then recited:
'No soul can know what it will earn tomorrow.' (31.34) She added: "And whoever
tells you that he concealed (some of Allah's orders), is a liar." Then she recited:
'O Apostle! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord '
(5.67) 'Aisha added. "But the Prophet saw Gabriel in his true form twice."
Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60,
Number 378
Narrated Masruq:
Aisha said, "If anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen his Lord, he is a liar,
for Allah says: No vision can grasp Him. (6.103) And if anyone tells you that
Muhammad has seen the Unseen, he is a liar, for Allah says: None has the knowledge
of the Unseen but Allah." Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93,
Number 477
Reports that say he did:
It is narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that he (the Holy Prophet) saw (Allah)
with, his heart. Sahih Muslim, Book 001,
Number 0334
It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the words: "The heart belied not
what he saw" (al-Qur'an, Iiii. 11) and "Certainly he saw Him in another
descent" (al-Qur'an, Iiii. 13) imply that he saw him twice with his heart.
Sahih Muslim, Book 001,
Number 0335
Fourth Contradiction
Do women nullify prayers or not? Yes they do:
Abu Dharr reported: THE MESSENGER OF 'ALLAH (may peace be upon him) SAID: When
any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the
saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of
the saddle, HIS PRAYER WOULD BE CUT OFF BY (passing of an) ASS, WOMAN, AND BLACK DOG.
I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the
red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah
(may peace be upon him) as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil.
Sahih Muslim, Book 004,
Number 1032
Abu Huraira reported: THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH (may peace be upon him) SAID: A WOMAN,
AN ASS AND A DOG DISRUPT THE PRAYER, but something like the back of a saddle guards
against that. Sahih Muslim, Book 004,
Number 1034
No they dont:
Narrated Aisha:
The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is
annulled by a dog, a donkey AND A WOMAN (if they pass in front of the praying people)."
I said, "You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while
I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something,
I would slip away, for I disliked to face him." Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 9,
Number 490
Fifth Contradiction
How many wives did Solomon sleep with?
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Prophet Solomon who had SIXTY WIVES, once said, "Tonight I will have
sexual relation (sleep) with all my wives so that each of them will become pregnant and
bring forth (a boy who will grow into) a cavalier and will fight in Allah's Cause."
So he slept with his wives and none of them (conceived and) delivered (a child) except one
who brought a half (body) boy (deformed). Allah's Prophet said, "If Solomon had said;
If Allah Will, then each of those women would have delivered a (would-be)
cavalier to fight in Allahs Cause." (See Hadith No. 74 A, Vol. 4).
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93,
Number 561
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Solomon (the son of) David said, Tonight I will sleep with
SEVENTY LADIES each of whom will conceive a child who will be a knight fighting for
"Allah's Cause." His companion said, If Allah will. But
Solomon did not say so; therefore none of those women got pregnant except one who gave
birth to a half child." The Prophet further said, "If the Prophet Solomon had
said it (i.e. If Allah will) he would have begotten children who would have
fought in Allah's Cause." Shuaib and Ibn Abi Az-Zinad said, "NINETY (women)
IS MORE CORRECT (than seventy)."Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55,
Number 635
Narrated Abu Huraira:
(The Prophet) Solomon said, "Tonight I will sleep with (my) NINETY WIVES, each
of whom will get a male child who will fight for Allahs Cause." On that, his
companion (Sufyan said that his companion was an angel) said to him, "Say, If
Allah will (Allah willing)." But Solomon forgot (to say it). He slept with all
his wives, but none of the women gave birth to a child, except one who gave birth to a
half boy. Abu Huraira added: The Prophet said, "If Solomon had said, If Allah
will (Allah willing), he would not have been unsuccessful in his action, and would
have attained what he had desired." Once Abu Huraira added: Allah apostle said,
"If he had accepted." Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 79,
Number 711
Narrated Abu Huraira:
(The Prophet) Solomon son of (the Prophet) David said, "Tonight I will go round (i.e.
have sexual relations with) ONE HUNDRED WOMEN (my wives) everyone of whom will
deliver a male child who will fight in Allahs Cause." On that an Angel said to
him, "Say: If Allah will." But Solomon did not say it and forgot to
say it. Then he had sexual relations with them but none of them delivered any child except
one who delivered a half person. The Prophet said, "If Solomon had said: If
Allah will, Allah would have fulfilled his (above) desire and that saying would have
made him more hopeful." Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62,
Number 169
The foregoing demonstrates that just because al-Bukhari recorded a statement from Ibn
Abbas that seems to imply his belief that the Holy Bible has been corrupted this still
doesnt really prove much since we find other statements of Ibn Abbas claiming that
Gods Books can never be changed. One cannot simply assume that one narration is
sound without providing evidence why he or she thinks that it is. We feel that we have
provided the evidence showing why the quotation from al-Bukhari where Ibn Abbas affirms
his belief in the incorruptibility of the Holy Scriptures is sounder since it best
comports with the evidence furnished by the Quran itself as well as from the textual
transmission of the Holy Bible. Now it is possible of course that Ibn Abbas did believe
that the previous Revelations had been corrupted, and if he did then this would only show
that he stood against the testimony of his own religious scripture and the evidence of the
textual transmission of the Holy Bible which conclusively shows that God has preserved his
true Word intact, despite all the variant readings.
Postscript
Muslim polemicist Bassam Zawadi takes a shot at refuting
(*)
al-Bukharis citation from Ibn Abbas regarding the incorruptibility of Gods
revealed books. Let us see how well he does.
He writes:
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)
Here is the specific part of Ibn Hajars comments that Zawadi somehow overlooked:
in spite of the fact that what is said before it IS FROM HIS WORDS as well as
that is after it
Ibn Hajars comments are rather confusing. Is he saying that the statements which
appear both before and after this specific part are definitely the words of Ibn Abbas? Or
is he referring to something else? If he is referring to this specific report then how did
he know that what appeared before and after Ibn Abbas statements regarding the
incorruptibility of Gods books are from him when the entire narrative lacks a
continuous chain?
Be that as it may, there were other scholars who disagreed with Ibn Hajar and acknowledged
that Ibn Abbas did make these comments. Throughout his article Zawadi references Dr. Muhammad
Abu Laylahs book, The Quran and the Gospels A Comparative Study.
In this very source the author cites another Muslim scholar who appealed to Ibn Abbas
statements regarding the textual incorruptibility of the Torah and the Gospel:
The Andalusian interpreter Ibn Atiyya stated that Tahrif means
"to change or transfer something from its original character to another" and
that Ibn Abbas held that the Jewish (and possibly the Christian, by implication)
corruption and change was to be found in exegesis, the letter of the Torah surviving
intact, although a second school of scholars maintained that the letters
themselves had been changed on the basis that although the Jews had been asked to
safeguard the Torah, unlike the Quran it was not safeguarded by God Himself.
(Laylah, The Quran and the Gospels A Comparative Study [Al-Falah
Foundation for Translation, Publication & Distribution, Third edition, 2005], pp. 145-146;
source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)
Moreover, we had earlier cited Ibn Kathir who quoted Ibn Abbas words as
reported by al-Bukhari. Here is his reference once again, this time with some additional context:
Mujahid, Ash-Sha'bi, Al-Hassan, Qatadah and Ar-Rabi' bin Anas said that,
<who distort the Book with their tongues.>
means, "They alter (Allah's Words)."
Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add
although none among Allah's creation can remove the words of Allah from His books, they
alter and distort their apparent meanings.Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The
Tawrah and Injil remain as Allah revealed them, and no letter in them was removed.
However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books
that they wrote themselves." Then,
<they say: "This is from Allah," but it is not from Allah;>
As for Allah's books, they are still preserved and cannot be changed." Ibn
Abi Hatim recorded this statement. However, if Wahb meant the books that are currently in
the hands of the People of the Book, then we should state that there is no doubt that they
altered, distorted, added to and deleted from them. For instance, the Arabic versions
of these books contain tremendous error, many additions and deletions and enormous
misinterpretation. Those who rendered these translations have incorrect comprehension in
most, rather, all of these translations. If Wahb meant the Books of Allah that He
has with Him, then indeed, these Books are preserved and were never changed. Tafsir
Ibn Kathir Abridged, Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5, Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to
Surat An-Nisa, verse 147 [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston,
New York, Lahore; First Edition: March 2000], p. 196;
source; bold emphasis ours)
Ibn Kathir disagrees with both Wahb and Ibn Abbas that the previous revelation remained
intact. And on what basis does he disagree? On the basis that Arabic versions of the Holy
Bible showed textual tampering in the form of additions and deletions! This is equivalent
to someone today claiming that the Quran has been corrupted due to the fact that there are
additions and omissions among the various English versions (*)
or that a specific English translation made by Rashad Khalifa omits Q. 9:128-129
(1,
2)!
The scholarly thing to do is to examine the original languages of the Scriptures and
see if the text has remained intact. Once this is done one will discover that the Holy
Bible, much like the Quran (*),
has come down to us with variant readings. However, these variants do not prove that
wholesale corruption to the Biblical text has taken place since the great bulk of these
readings are inconsequential and do not affect the meaning of the text. To claim otherwise
would actually imply that the Quran along with the Holy Bible, and all other books that
were hand copied, have been completely corrupted seeing that such books have come down to
us with textual variations. The fact is that, after carefully examining the variant
readings, textual scholars have been able to reconstruct roughly 99% of the original text
of the NT and it is therefore purely wishful thinking on the part of Muslims to claim that
the original reading of the Bible books have been lost or corrupted beyond restoration.
Returning to the issue at hand, how strange that scholars such as Ibn Atiyya and
Ibn Kathir could approvingly cite al-Bukharis quotation from Ibn Abbas despite the
lack of a chain of transmission! Could it be that these scholars realized that for
al-Bukhari to even include it in his collection was proof enough for them that the
quotation in question must have passed his very strict standard of authentication? After
all, dont Muslim scholars assert that al-Bukharis hadith collection is the
most authentic book after the Quran? More on this point below.
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. Here we see that Imam Tabari 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?
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.
There are several problems with Zawadis assertions. In the first place,
this attempt of evasion will not solve the problem for Zawadi but only compound the
difficulties for him since all of al-Bukharis reports which contain an unbroken
chain (isnad) were written over two hundred years after Muhammads death.
Despite this long gap in time Zawadi erroneously assumes that just because a report
provides a chain of transmitters this means that Muslims are able to accurately trace back
the origin of a specific report. The circularity of such a position can be easily seen
when we bear in mind this late dating of al-Bukhari.
To highlight the circularity of Zawadis reasoning note that:
Muslims like Zawadi assume the veracity of a specific narration because of the
authenticity of its chain.
Yet these chains are contained in sources which were written over two hundred years
after the events in question.
This is the major problem that Zawadi faces. This huge time gap shows how unfeasible
it is for Muslims to claim that a specific report is authentic due to its chain since,
apart from a written trail, there is absolutely no way of verifying whether the people
mentioned in that chain were reliable, were capable of passing down accurate information,
or whether such individuals even existed! In other words, there is simply no possible way
for someone writing two hundred years after an event to be able to completely guarantee
that all the names of the chain which goes back over a two hundred year period are
entirely correct, or that the men listed within these chains were completely honest.
Secondly, as Imam Al-Badr al-'Aini in the above quote from Zawadi noted,
the hadith collection of al-Bukhari is filled with subheadings and quotes of specific Muslims
without a chain of transmission, just as the following English version amply testifies:
http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhcont.html
If we were to therefore take Zawadis criticism seriously this means that a great
bulk of al-Bukharis collection must be omitted, specifically the quotations that
appear under the subheadings that precede the so-called sound reports.
This leads us to our third point. It is often claimed that al-Bukhari was the most
careful collector of Muslim traditions, omitting thousands of hadiths that did not meet
his strict specifications of authenticity. To help illustrate this fact we quote from the
Muslim translator of Al-Bukhari's hadith collection:
It has been UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that Imam Bukhari's work is the most authentic
of all the other works in Hadith literature PUT TOGETHER. The authenticity
of Al-Bukhari's work is such that the religious learned scholars of Islam said concerning
him: "The most authentic book after the Book of Allah (i.e., Al-Qur'an) is Sahih
Al-Bukhari."
Before he recorded each Hadith he would make ablution and offer two Rakat
prayer and supplicate his Lord (Allah). Many religious scholars of Islam tried to find
fault in the great remarkable collection- Sahih Al-Bukhari, BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS.
It is for this reason, they UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that the most authentic book after
the Book of Allah ISSahih Al-Bukhari. Translation of the Meanings of
Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan,
Islamic University, Al-Madina Al-Munawwara, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; compilation:
Al-Imam Zain-ud-Din Ahmad bin Abdul-Lateef Az-Zubaidi [Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Publishers
& Distributors, Riyadh-Saudi Arabia, 1994], pp. 18-19; bold and capital emphasis ours)
The following citations are taken from the Islamic Awareness team's response to Andrew
Vargo's criticism of Imam al-Bukhari's collection:
* The two sahîh
collections did not gather the totality of the authentic ahâdîth as proved by
al-Bukhârî's testimony: "I have not included
in my book al-Jâmic but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic for fear of [excessive] length.(Footnote 2)"
Footnote 2 says:
He [al-Bukhârî] meant that he did not mention all the turuq [parallel chains of transmission] for each and every hadîth.[1]
To reiterate this in elementary English for the neophyte,
Imâm al-Bukhârî selected only a few authentic ahâdîth from his vast
collection. However, he left out certain traditions, despite their authenticity, simply to
avoid excessive length and repetition in his al-Jâmic (a discussion about which is given below). If anything, the privilege to make
such a gesture is highly complimentary to the authenticity of the Islamic traditions.
In another tradition, Imâm al-Bukhârî is also reported to have said:
He said, I heard as-Sacdânî say, I heard some of our companions say, Muhammad Ibn Ismâcîl said: I selected/published [the
content of] this book - meaning
the Sahih book - from about 600,000 hadîths/reports. Abû Sacd al-Mâlînî informed us that cAbdullâh Ibn cUdayy
informed us: I heard al-Hasan Ibn al-Husayn al-Bukhârî say: "I
have not included in my book al-Jâmic but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic what I could
not get hold of."[2]
And:
Imâm al-Bukhârî's collection of ahâdîth was maintained to be
authentic on account of his authority,and it has been maintained as authentic ever
since. The neophyte's assertion, that Imâm al-Bukhârî regarded almost 99% of
his own collection as spurious, is among the most rash and foolhardy statements ever dared
by a Christian missionary. On the contrary, the 7,397 refers to the number of hadîths
that Imâm al-Bukhârî chose to include in his al-Jâmic and left out many authentic
narrations from his vast collection for the fear of excessive length.
Regardless, we will quote the famous trial of Imâm al-Bukhârî to show
how Maqlub[8] (changed, reversed) ahadîth can be identified with ease by a scholar of hadîth:
The famous trial of al-Bukhârî by the scholars of Baghdad provides a good example of a Maqlûb
isnâd. The traditionists, in order to test their visitor, al-Bukhârî, appointed ten men, each with ten ahâdîth. Now, each hadîth
(text) of these ten people was prefixed with the isnâd of another. Imâm al-Bukhârî listened to each of the ten men as they narrated their ahâdîth and denied the correctness of every hadîth. When they had finished
narrating these ahâdîth, he addressed each person in turn and recounted to him
each of his ahâdîth with its correct isnâd. This trial earned him great
honour among the scholars of Baghdad.[9]
(On The Nature Of Hadith Collections Of Imam Al-Bukhari
& Muslim; source;
bold and italic emphasis ours)
With the foregoing in perspective it should be abundantly clear that al-Bukhari would
not include anything which he suspected was fraudulent or that didnt meet his
criteria for authenticity.(1) Thus, for al-Bukhari to include this quotation from
Ibn Abbas means that this report must have met his very strict specifications and was
fully convinced of its reliability. This further explains why both Ibn Atiyya and
Ibn Kathir could quote this narrative without questioning its authenticity.
And yet Zawadi wants his readers to actually believe that al-Bukhari was less stringent
at this specific point since he decided to quote a questionable report!
Interestingly, Zawadi agrees with us that one should reconcile this specific narrative
with the other narrations that claim that Ibn Abbas seemingly questioned the authority of
the Holy Bible:
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
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 eternal 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.
This is precisely what we have done here. We carefully analyzed all of what Ibn Abbas
is reported to have said, both here and in this article,
comparing his statements in light of the teachings of the Quran and concluded that the
only plausible way of harmonizing these conflicting reports is to assume that Ibn Abbas
wasnt speaking of textual corruption of the Holy Bible. Rather, Ibn Abbas was
referring to the Jews and Christians corrupting the Bible through their misinterpretations
of their holy Scripture and by writing books that they took to be inspired by God (such as
the Talmud) but which further corrupted the plain meaning of the inspired text of
Gods Word.
Endnotes
(1) Now this doesnt mean that just because this report satisfied
al-Bukharis criteria for authenticity that this somehow makes it a genuine saying of
Ibn Abbas. It simply means that those Muslims who do hold al-Bukharis collection in
very high esteem must contend with the fact that this narrative met his strict and
rigorous standards of reliability and cannot simply dismiss it. Yet as we stated
al-Bukharis stringent method of authentication cannot guarantee that a narration was
passed down accurately for over two hundred years, nor can it guarantee that the names of
those who transmitted it actually existed or were reliable preservers of that specific
tradition in question.
In this post I will quote the sections from the Catechism and its compendium to show that the Church both affirms and quotes 1 Timothy 2:5 where it plainly states that Christ is the one Mediator between God and men. I will also cite those parts where the Church
The deuteron-canonical writings contain passages which point to the Triunity of God. In fact, the New Testament itself echoes the language and ideas of these writings when describing Christ as Divine. For instance, Jesus is said to be the Wisdom, Word and Power of God, being uniquely born (monogenes) Son
