Rebuttal to TurretinFan's Article "Mohamed Did Not Believe that the Old Testament was Corrupt"
By
Bassam Zawadi
TurretinFan's article could be located here.
TurretinFan said:
Today, many Islamic apologists like to claim that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is corrupt. They feel the need to claim this, because they are aware of the fact that the Bible is inconsistent with Islam.
My Response:
That is not true. We claim this because all of our major sources of Islamic authority say so as I have documented over here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evidence_that_islam_teaches_that_there_was_textual_corruption_of_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures
TurretinFan said:
Surah 62:5 The similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of Allah: and Allah guides not people who do wrong.
Notice that the Surah compares the Jews to Donkeys carrying "huge tomes" that they do not understand. Notice that the Surah alleges that the Jews "falsify the Signs of Allah," but the most natural reading of the Surah (at least in this translation) is that they falsify not through destroying the text, but through misunderstanding or misinterpreting the text.
Notice that is says "huge tomes" not "no tomes" or "tattered tomes."
And, in another translation, we see the same concept:
62.5 The likeness of those who were charged with the Taurat, then they did not observe it, is as the likeness of the ass bearing books, evil is the likeness of the people who reject the communications of Allah; and Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Notice how the text parallels "books" and "communications of Allah."
My Response:
We are not quite sure why TurretinFan brought up this verse. He only argues:
but the most natural reading of the Surah (at least in this translation) is that they falsify not through destroying the text, but through misunderstanding or misinterpreting the text.
However, this is not evidence that the Qur'an doesn't teach that the Torah has been textually corrupted. This would only prove that this verse in specific does not teach this.
Let us educate TurretinFan a little bit more on this issue.
Muslims believe that the Gospel and Torah have been corrupted in more than one way. We believe that they were not only corrupted textually, but hermeneutically as well.
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi clarifies:
{ 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)
Here Imam Razi clarifies that some verses of the Qur'an speak about the hermeneutical corruption of the previous scriptures and not textual corruption of the previous scriptures. While some other verses speak about the textual corruption of the previous scriptures without mentioning the hermeneutical corruption of the previous scriptures.
What TurretinFan is doing is appealing to verses that only speak about the hermeneutical corruption and tries to give his readers the false impression that this is the only kind of corruption that the Qur'an alludes to.
TurretinFan said:
Notice also that in this translation they are described as rejecting them - presumably because like donkeys they don't understand what is in them - perhaps simply because "Allah does not guide" them.
My Response:
Allah only misguides those who are worthy of being misguided. See here.
TurretinFan said:
And it is not the only place in the Koran that such an idea can be found. Recall that it is recorded:
[2.285] The apostle believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers; they all believe in Allah and His angels and His books and His apostles; We make no difference between any of His apostles; and they say: We hear and obey, our Lord! Thy forgiveness (do we crave), and to Thee is the eventual course.
And in another translation:
Surah 2:285 The Apostle believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His apostles. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His apostles." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."
Notice that it is says "books," not "book." What's even more interesting is that we are told that the Surahs were themselves orally proclaimed at first - which would suggest that the "books" do not even include the Koran. There is no need, however, to go that far. The fact that the plural form is used is enough to establish the fact that Mohamed did not hold to the idea that the books were corrupted, for if they were corrupted why would he teach that he believes in them?
My Response:
The essential question that TurretinFan is asking is:
for if they were corrupted why would he teach that he believes in them?
The author's line of argument is as follows:
Premise 1: In order for the Muslim to believe in the previous books that Allah revealed, these books must be present with us today in an uncorrupted manuscript form.
Premise 2: The Muslim must obey the injunction of Surah 2:285, which requires him to believe in the books that Allah has revealed.
Conclusion: The Muslim must believe that the previous scriptures are with us today in an uncorrupted manuscript form.
The logical flow of this argument is valid; however it could be proven false if one of the premises is shown to be false. I have no problem with premise 2, but I sure do have a problem with premise 1.
Let us read what Surah 2:285 says again:
The Apostle believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in God, His angels, His books, and His apostles. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His apostles." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."
Notice that the verse says that we must believe in
1) Allah
2) His Angels
3) His Books
4) His Apostles
My question to everyone is: do we say that we can see the angels around us? The answer is no.
Another question to everyone is: are all the previous apostles alive with us today? The answer is no.
Now the angels and apostles are not alive with us today and we can't see them, yet we are still to believe in them. Is that possible? Well I don't see why not. I believe in God's angels by believing that they exist. Similarly, I believe in Allah's apostles by believing and acknowledging that whoever He declared to be His apostle in the past is indeed His apostle.
Similarly, I believe in Allah's books by acknowledging and believing that there were indeed revelations sent to the Messengers in the past (Surah 2:136-137). I believe in Allah's books by believing that there was a true Gospel and true Torah sent to Prophets Jesus and Moses (peace be upon them both) respectively. It is not necessary for these two books to be in my presence in order for me to believe in them, any more than it is necessary for the previous apostles who have all died to be in my presence in order for me to believe in them.
There is a second potential response to this argument. That response is that all the true revelations of God are preserved in their uncorrupted forms in The Preserved Tablet, for Allah has written all things in The Preserved Tablet. (See Ibn Kathir's commentary on Surah 85:22 and Surah 3:78) Hence, Muslims believe in the uncorrupted previous scriptures safeguarded in The Preserved Tablet.
Thus, we have seen that Premise 2 is not necessarily true. Since Premise 2 is not necessarily true then this weakens the entire argument. In conclusion, this argument fails.
TurretinFan said:
And we need not rest on only those two places, for there is at least one more:
[20.133] And they say: Why does he not bring to us a sign from his Lord? Has not there come to them a clear evidence of what is in the previous books?
And again, in another translation:
Surah 20:133 They say: "Why does he not bring us a sign from his Lord?" Has not a Clear Sign come to them of all that was in the former Books of revelation?
Note how Mohamed here actually states that there is "clear evidence" or a "clear sign" as to what the content of the "former books" or "previous books." These are not books hopelessly lost in obscurity in the mind of the author of this Surah.
My Response:
Because the author does not know Arabic and has to rely on English translations, he would definitely be vulnerable to these kinds of mistakes. The verse in Arabic does not say that the content of the previous books are clear signs. It is saying that there is a clear sign for Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) prophethood in the previous scriptures (i.e. namely its prophesizing of him).
Thus, this doesn't prove that the entire content of the previous books are uncorrupted. It only shows that it contains some truth. For more on this issue please go here.
TurretinFan said:
If you are a Muslim, doesn't this sort of thing cause you a bit of concern? Aren't you bothered by the fact that your prophet accepted the books and "believed in them," while you must not?
My Response:
The only thing that concerns me is how you missionaries continue to grossly distort our scriptures. We kindly ask you to please stop and to start learning from the experts.
Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com
Return to Does Islam Endorse The Bible?
Return to Homepage
