In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
4:23-24 expands on the categories of women that are illegal for intimate relations however it makes an exception for already married Ma Malakat aymanikum. In case a married woman embraces Islam and then decides to desert her non-Muslim husband (only for the sake of her new faith) seeking shelter in a Muslim area. If after examination she is believed to be sincere in her faith then she cannot be turned back to her previous home, not only for safety reasons but also because -in the case her husband is an idolator- her new faith has made unlawful intermarriages with idolaters 2:221.
A Muslim man may take her under his wing in his household, thus making her his mulk yamin. They become legal for eachother and if they wish to marry, they may only do so after payment of the dower to her initial husband thus definitely annulling the previous marriage ties 60:10. Notice here the justice in the Quran where it first encourages Muslims to pay what is due to the opposite party with whom one is at war, regardless of potentially these enemies not reciprocating with the Muslims in the same situation. 60:11 then discusses that eventuality and says that should it occur, then for the next cases, a disbelieving husband will only be compensated proportionally to what his predecessor unfairly compensated the Muslim camp. By first encouraging indiscriminate justice, and then justice by deterrence, the Quran skilfully equalizes the balance of justice even in times of war.
The other case of a married woman becoming lawful to a Muslim is that of a former married war prisoner. Once the threat of war was over, the defeated enemy and their belongings brought at the battlefield were confiscated, including their women which per their customs they used to unjustly drag with them as a means by which they were emboldened to fight. They now fell under Muslim custody, as a punishment and lesson to those who do not value their own, including a lesson to these very women.
When they were integrated into the fabric of society, taken in a Muslim household and made to benefit from the strict regulations as regards right hand possessions, which includes being kind and caring with them as one would be with the remaining members of the family, these women learned that Islam gave them, even in such conditions, a value they could never have hoped for in their own communities. Their surviving husbands that in fact do not deserve to be married to them in the first place, are only hurt in their male "pride". They didnt love these women, who would treat a wife in such way, bring her to the battlefield as a motivation not to surrender? Even then, they learn that wives, and women in general, do have a value seeing how Muslims treat the wives of their enemies.
There were also cases of wars where Muslims were on the offensive, and after defeating the enemy, seized the property and families of the combatants. When a Muslim guardian takes into his home such women war captives, making them his right hand possessions, their former marriage is dissolved. After a waiting period until one menstrual cycle is cleared, she become sexually lawful to him. This in no way entails forced sex. There are no such recorded cases in history and if anything, whenever a case of mistreated and abused person was brought to the prophet, he condemned such a behavior, especially when the victims were women and slaves. The guardian may in that case either keep her in his household and stop insisting or send her away from his household by ransoming her against benefits of any kinds to her former camp, if anyone among her own people desires taking her back. For example upon the conquest of Khaybar, Safiyya fell under the prophet's possession. He offered her to return to her own people, or be freed and married to him and she chose the latter. The social contract between a guardian and his right hand possession is exclusive to them both, legalizing and regulating sexual activity as would be in a marriage contract and its accompanying responsibilities of maintenance and good treatment.
That these mulk yamin cannot be forced into intimacy by the guardian is exemplified through the story of prophet Yusuf, bought as a slave and whom his mistress wanted to abuse sexually under the threat of emprisonnement. The Quran condemns such action, calls it an indecency/fahisha for the owner of a slave to have intercourse with him/her under compulsion 12:24 a grave fault and a manifest error 12:29-30. Yusuf desired to keep his chastity so he repeatedly refused, being God's sincere servant he was protected and guided away from transgression, even willingly preferring emprisonnement than succombing to the sin 12:24-35 (see Ps105:19). Temptation is something any human being, regardless of his uprightness, might be subject to. Merit lies in whether one acts upon that temptation when in the full capacity to do it, or restrains oneself.
Just as the Quran condemned Yusuf's mistress from acting against her servant's desire to remain chaste, the Quran prohibits the guardian from acting contrary to his mulk yamin's desire for chastity, such as by forcing her into prostitution as was the custom in pre-islamic times. If he nevertheless does so, despite the prohibition, then the abused woman is certainly not to blame due to her weak background 24:33.
In 4:36 the Quran speaks of how they must be treated with kindness, without pride as one would treat the parents, neighbors or the weak in society. This means their guardians cannot abuse them in anyway just as one would not abuse the other groups mentionned in the verse
"He who slaps his slave or beats him, there is no expiation for this but to free him".
As the prophet here clearly instructs, physical abuse is a transgression that must be expiated.
The Quran thus opens many different options to those categories, besides encouraging their kind treatment. In 4:3 Allah is commanding the believers who has orphans under his care towards whom he fears not to fulfill all his responsibility to marry up to 4 women but if he thinks he cannot deal in fairness with multiple wives, to marry
"only one or/aw Ma Malakat Aymanukum",
meaning a legal wife for a man who fears not to deal justly between mutliple wives can be either a regular woman who is protected and supported/muhsana OR Ma Malakat Ayman already in his possession. Therefore marrying malakat ayman according to 4:3, and other passages like 4:25, is as acceptable as marrying a normal woman and further 24:32 strongly encourages men and women to marry from their male/female slaves as an act of virtue.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
If we start rejecting prophets for having had sex with a concubine, then not much of the biblical prophets would be left. This youtuber is here attempting to misrepresent, with his biblical paradigm in mind, what a concubine is in Islam.
Besides those that already existed in the society and households before Islam, ma malakat aymanukum are not free persons randomly captured and enslaved or acquired through trade since the Quran only allows the enslavement of captives taken in defensive war campaigns, and only after the threat of war has been subdued meaning their seizure could not be an objective of going to war 8:67,47:4.
In fact the prophet dismissed from fighting those that were more preoccupied with the prospect of capturing potential concubines.
Ma malakat aymanukum, simplicitly rendered "concubines" by the opponents of Islam, are people from both genders, men or women, who were neither freed as a favor nor ransomed, but singled out from the rest of the captives and taken under a guardian's wing in his household because obviously not all captives were taken in. They also become sexually lawful outside wedlock to the guardian that has taken charge of them.
It is to be noted here, although they can be treated as concubines, this however does not mean that they systematically were. The prophet had in his household several such women living side by side with his wives, to aid and assist for the daily and nightly tasks of receiving at anytime people seeking all kinds of advises and help.
The right hand possessions are people from both genders as already pointed
24:33"And (as for) those (Walladheen) who ask (Yabtaghoona) for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess give them the writing (Fa Kaatibuuhum)"
Ma Malakat aymanikum must cover both males and females because if they were only females it should be "wallaati" or "wallaa'i" instead of Walladheen, "yabtaghuna" (without the waw) instead of Yabtaghoona, "Fa Kaatibuuhuna" instead of Fa Kaatibuuhum. This further proves that the expression, right hand possession does not automatically denote concubine relationship, and anyone claiming the opposite should be able to prove that it was accepted for male or female guardians to have sexual relations with their male right hand possession. Verses such as 24:33,58 speak of those MMA and how they should mingle with the rest of the household. 16:71 is a warning to those guardians who fail to live up to their moral and material responsibilities towards those categories under their care, stating that such failure amounts to a denial of God's blessings and of His unceasing care for all His creatures.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
Contrary to Christians who went to such extent in their over-exaltation of their prophet that, in the absence of a birthday for Jesus went searching in the pagan calendar for a date to artificially ascribe as Jesus' birthday, the Muslims do not celebrate their prophet's birth or death. The importance is focused on the message and this is why we celebrate the only month mentioned by name in the Quran, that of Ramadan. We gratefuly fast, which is a symbol of self sacrifice, in remembrence of God's sending in this month, a guiding light for all of mankind, to the heart of His prophet on a night of Ramadan, the Night of Destiny/laylatul Qadr. The root is R-M-Dhad, meaning "heat".
RAMADAN was the month of heat because it fell in the heat of the summer. The pre-Islamic Arabs used a combined Lunar/Solar calendar, and would periodically add a month in order to compensate for the shorter lunar year as opposed to the solar year. This resulted in fixing their rituals, like the yearly pilgrimage, to more convenient times from certain aspects. However, Islam banned the addition of such months 9:36-7.
This meant that the month of Ramadan is now rotating through the year in a 33 year cycle. This avoids the convenient fixation of certain religious practices according to human whims, for purely worldly motives, violating God's established sacred months and allowing an ordinary month to be observed as sacred and vice versa. For example the pre-Islamic Arabs used this practice to avoid the disadvantages for their trade. Banning the intercalary month opens up the way for spiritual improvement, training one to perform his duties at all times of the year and under all circumstances.
Also, from the viewpoint of the universality of religion, it is obvious that the periods of fasting and performing Haj cannot satisfy all if they be fixed, always falling in the same season and month in different places-summer or winter or very hot or very cold or rainy or dry or harvesting or sowing-year after year. The Islamic time-keeping system is in fact the most scientifically relevant, because it does not require intercallation and thus making its precise reference point known to the day. Add to this the fact that the Islamic calendar is the only one that is divested from all elements of overt and parenthetical shirk, such as how the days of the week and the months of the year are named.
Before Islam, fasting did not resemble the current practice of Ramadan. Fasting meant, among other things to the Arabs the suffering of some (not complete) privation in times of mourning and sorrow.
In pre-islamic times, couples also entirely refrained from sexual contact even after breaking their fast, which the Quran abolished 2:187. The regular, yearly practice of fasting for the Meccans was done on the day of Ashura, on the 10th of Muharram. Ashura is the Arabic for the "10th" just as Tasua is for "9th". The prophet was no exception. He in addition fasted throughout the year, not leaving any month without fast
"Sometimes Allah's Messenger would not fast (for so many days) that we thought that he would not fast that month and he sometimes used to fast (for so many days) that we thought he would not leave fasting throughout that month".
Before institutionalizing fasting in its current form during Ramadan, the Muslims were to emulate the prophet during short fasting periods.
This is reflected in the Quran's introduction to the practice of fasting, as well as the prophet's recommendation
"Once Allah's Messenger said to me, "I have been informed that you offer Salat (prayer) all the night and observe Saum (fast) during the day." I said, "(Yes) I do so." He said, "If you do so, your eye sight will become weak and you will become weak. No doubt, your body has right on you, and your family has right on you, so observe Saum (for some days) and do not observe it (for some days), offer Salat (for sometime) and then sleep".
Before speaking of Ramadan, the Quran regulates fasting for a short period of time, using the phrase ayyam maAAdudaatin/counted days, implying a small number 2:183-4, which isnt the case of a 30 days fast. maAAdudaatin is a device in Arabic called jam3un qilla/lit. plural for little. The regulations of the previous fast are then transposed onto the new fast of Ramadan. This will be the definite form of the fast
"Ashura' (i.e. the tenth of Muharram) was a day on which the tribe of Quraish used to fast in the prelslamic period of ignorance. The Prophet also used to fast on this day. So when he migrated to Medina, he fasted on it and ordered (the Muslims) to fast on it. When the fasting of Ramadan was enjoined, it became optional for the people to fast or not to fast on the day of Ashura".
Ramadan commemorates the sacredness and spiritual significance of that month
2:185"The month of Ramadan is that in which the Quran was revealed, a guidance to men and clear proofs of the guidance and the distinction; therefore whoever of you is present in the month, he shall fast therein..that you should exalt the greatness of Allah for His having guided you and that you may give thanks".
The first thing said about the month of Ramadan is its sacredness due to the revelation having initiated in it, fasting is the secondary aspect of it.
Fasting is an act of great virtue and piety practiced by nations and prophets long before Muhammad 2:183-187,Ex24:18,Joel2:11-13,Matt4:2,6:16-18etc The abstinence prescribed, from gratifying material desires, satisfying the body's lust and inclinations purges the soul from the love of worldly affairs, focuses the attention on the spiritual realm. It is a period of self-improvement, where Muslims start a spiritual and moral training that shapes their lives for the months ahead, from one Ramadan to the next. It is a command literally aimed at "doing guarding"/laAAlakum tattaqqun 2:183. Often translated "fear", taqwa stems from w-q-w meaning guarding, or protection (see 73:17). In Arabic, as in any language, synonyms have one or more common elements but every synonym on its own carries some sort of specific nuance. For example many words are used in the Quran to denote fear, including khushuaa, Khawf, Hadhr, rawaa, awjas, rahb, ruaab, taqwa etc. The common denominator between these words is fear but every time with a nuance highly meaningful to the context. The specificity of the taqwa type of fear is that it is the fear of future consequences, hence the implicit notion of guarding oneself. The prophet is reported to have stated that
"A person might fast and he gets nothing from his fast but hunger".
That is because he did not do it with taqwa, guarding his spirituality.
So, just as the body must go through physical training to become protected in specific situations, the soul needs the same in order to be guarded from deviations. Fasting, along with all its spiritual implications is one of the means given in the Quran for the achievement of that objective. This taqwa/guarding of the soul happens through consciousness of God in all deeds, by increasing help to the underprivileged members of society, working towards improving social interactions, including strengthening ties of kinship, showing forgiveness and compassion. Fasting also teaches one that if he can abstain from that which is otherwise lawful and a primary need such as food, natural sexual desires and passions, how much more necessary is it that he should abstain from the evil ways which are forbidden by God and are not only unnatural but oppose one's own conscience.
It is made compulsory except on the sick or temporarily incapacitated from travel
"but whoever among you is sick or on a journey".
That person must later redeem himself by fasting the same number of missed days (when the conditions become more favorable for a fast) and in addition must feed a needy person if he can afford it (the pronoun HU in yatiqunahu refers to taam/feeding). In all cases, whether it be to redeem a missed fast or not
"whoever does good spontaneously it is better for him; and that you fast is better for you if you know".
We will now get technical and analyze the claims of adverse health effect resulting from fasting.
The physical effects of a Ramadan-type fasting, on the ones able to perform it, lowers LDL cholesterol, excessive fatty tissue and anxiety in the fasting subjects. Experiments on mice have shown that extending the daily fasting period may override the adverse health effects of a high-fat diet and prevent obesity, diabetes and liver disease. This is because when eating frequently, the body continues to make and store fat, ballooning fat cells and liver cells, which can result in liver damage. Under such conditions the liver also continues to make glucose, which raises blood sugar levels. Time-restricted feeding, on the other hand, reduces production of free fat, glucose and cholesterol and makes better use of them. It cuts down glucose, fat and ketone storage, and turns on fat burning mechanisms, thereby keeping the liver cells healthy and reducing overall body fat.
The daily feeding-fasting cycle activates liver enzymes that breakdown cholesterol into bile acids, spurring the metabolism of brown fat -- a type of "good fat" in our body that converts extra calories to heat. Thus the body literally burns fat during fasting. The liver also shuts down glucose production for several hours, which helps lower blood glucose. The extra glucose that would have ended up in the blood -- high blood sugar is a hallmark of diabetes -- is instead used to build molecules that repair damaged cells and make new DNA. This helps prevent chronic inflammation, which has been implicated in the development of a number of diseases, including heart disease, cancer, stroke and Alzheimer's. Hormonal changes during the fasting period have also shown to favor the dieter.
For example the satiety hormone (leptin)'s secretion rises in daylight hours, declining in the late day; the hunger hormone (ghrelin)'s secretion decreases, peaking only in the evening hours; and the curve of adiponectin, the hormonal link between obesity, insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome, remain elevated. Dieters have thus been shown to have a pattern leading to lower hunger scores, and better anthropometric (weight, abdominal circumference and body fat), biochemical (blood sugar, blood lipids) and inflammatory outcomes.
Cycles of prolonged fasting also provide protection against immune system damage, even inducing immune system regeneration, shifting stem cells from a dormant state to a state of self-renewal. That is because starvation forces the system to save energy, such as by recycling a lot of the immune cells that are not needed. Then when you re-feed, the blood cells come back. During each cycle of fasting, this depletion of white blood cells induces changes that trigger stem cell-based regeneration of new immune system cells. In particular, prolonged fasting reduced the enzyme PKA, responsible for longevity in simple organisms and which has been linked in other research to the regulation of stem cell self-renewal and pluripotency. Prolonged fasting also lowered levels of IGF-1, a growth-factor hormone, linked to aging, tumor progression and cancer risk.
Prolonged fasting also protects against toxicity in a pilot clinical trial in which a small group of patients fasted for a 72-hour period prior to chemotherapy, causing partial regeneration of damaged immune cells.
The important point about fasting as said in the passage's opening statement is that it is aimed at increasing piety, God-consciousness. It is thus the responsibility of the one seeking spiritual betterment to make all necessary preparations for the attainment of that objective. This doesnt only apply to fasting but to all other religious practices, like praying, spending for charity, going on pilgrimage or fighting in self-defense when required. All religious rites demand the fulfillment of certain conditions to be valid and so is the practice of fasting, counting among its conditions the witnessing of certain natural phenomena. These phenomena are the start and end of a lunar month
"whoever of you witnesses the month"
and the start and end of a day
"and eat and drink until the whiteness of the day becomes distinct from the blackness of the night at dawn, then complete the fast till night"
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
When they raise the "foreign" words card, the misinformed critics imply that the Quran borrows foreign concepts or uses foreign expressions without which certain ideas could not be formulated using purely Arabic vocabulary. It is first to be noted that in Arabic, like every other language, foreign words have been adopted as people have interracted. In some cases, as can be seen with every language, these words retain their cultural or theological baggage, and in others, a new meaning is assumed even to the point of complete departure from the original definition.
In the Quran's case, these words which the polemicists point to and that do not even amount to a fraction of all words in the whole Book, are either not even foreign at all (they have well established triliteral Arabic roots), have been part of Arabic vocabulary since before the emergence of the prophet, or were common to Arabic, Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew and Ethiopic, they being cognate languages and thus rendering the tracing of their origin very difficult. Words of foreign origin are found in the Quran but they had entered into Arabic before the revelation and are thus now to be considered Arabic.
Onus is on the critics to prove that these words were borrowed post Islam in order to express certain notions. In their effort to blow up that issue of "foreign" words out of proportions, they have disregarded other well known facts. Anyone familiar with pre-islamic literature and poems knows how rich and expressive the language of the time already was, thus there was no need to express certain ideas by borrowing new terms from foreign languages.
In any case, whether a Quranic word truly is originally foreign to Arabic and in addition retains its original meaning, by becoming part of Arabic vocabulary and common use it necessarily, as in any language, becomes an Arabic word.
In answer to the video "Why the Quran Was Revealed in Arabic (David Wood)"
When the Quran states scriptures of the past were corrupted and tampered with, it never asserts corruption in an absolute sense. This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian/Arbitrer), when talking about what is contemporary to it in terms of revealed truths, whether available in oral or writen tradition, such as the Torah and Injil. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditons. It also means the coming of Muhammad and the Quran prove the prophecies of the Torah and Gospel as true 6:20,7:157,61:6. It is in this same sense that Jesus confirmed and fulfilled the Torah and the Prophets. He confirmed the truth in them, exposing the falsehood, oral or textual, and he fulfilled the prophecies related to himself
Matt5:17-20,19:16-19,Quran5:46"And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil)".
The Bani Israil who rejected Jesus were in reality rejecting their Torah. Now that the Quran came, if the people of the book do not stand firm by it, then they will be violating even their own scriptures which it confirms and fulfills. In 46:10 the Quran refers to a witness from among the Israelites that believed in the like of his scriptures, meaning the Quran.
According to tradition, the verse is speaking of the learned rabbi Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion to Islam. Given his religious knowledge, he knew the Quran abrogates and supersedes, exposes and denies, confirms in places while contradicting in many other places his own scripture, the Torah. But yet it literally says, this rabbi believed in the like of his scriptures. That "likeness" between the Torah and the Quran therefore can only be the statements that fully agree with one another. This is exactly what is meant by Quran confirming the past revelations. It confirms the truth in them in several ways, including exposing what is from God and what is man-made, hence its function as the Muhaymin/guardian,arbitrer as well as fulfilling its prophecies, which the Quran repeatedly echoes and which of course the learned rabbi knew applied to Muhammad
2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons"..
That is also why the minority comentators that rejected the application of the verse to ibn Salam, rather see in it a reference to Moses himself. He was the Israelite witness that testified to one like himself/mithlihi, as clearly stated in the prophecy of
Deut18:18"I will set up a prophet for them, from among their brothers like you and I will put my words into his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him".
But as attested in history, not all of them remained obdurate
3:199"And most surely of the followers of the Book there are those who believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, being lowly before Allah; they do not take a small price for the communications of Allah; these it is that have their reward with their Lord; surely Allah is quick in reckoning".
These are the righteous among the followers of previous scriptures and who remained truthful to their Books. This sincerity inevitably led them to believe in the Quran
4:162,5:83"But the firm in knowledge among them..believe in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you...and when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle, you will see their eye overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize. They say; our Lord, we believe so write us down with the witnesses".
A subtle aspect worth noting in 2:121 is that since the righteous among them are mentioned, the expression used is "We have given them the Book" not "They were given the Book" conveying the idea that it is God who gave it to them and guided them on account of their righteousness, contrary to those who were given the book without identification of the giver or instructor. This pattern is present throughout the Quran and is actually one of the many examples of its linguistic precision.
This is why the people of the book are never told to reject their scriptures in 5:68,69 but rather to stand by not only the Torah and the Gospel, but the Quran, to which the previous scriptures naturally lead to. This has been pointed to in the words
"and that which is revealed to you from your Lord".
Because it is the "Muhaymin" of their revelations, the guardian of the truth which God himself has pledged to preserve unlike any holy book, the reminder of the pure way of Ibrahim. As to those who would claim, and still do, that they only believe that which has been revealed to them then the Quran answers them that even Prophets that came from among their own people, preaching adherence to their own books were killed by these men, as Jesus put it Mk12:1-12,Matt23:31-37. This charge was levelled against them in the earliest Meccan revelations such as 37:37 before the interraction with them in Medina.
In answer to the video "Why the Quran Was Revealed in Arabic (David Wood)"
In summary, the passage 5:43-68, states the following;
1. God reveals the Torah.
2. God then reveals the Gospel, and the Bani israel are required to judge by it. They cannot ignore it, despite the fact that they have the Torah. Further, this rejection would be even more grievous considering the fact that the Gospel confirms the Torah as a Book of God.
3. Now God has revealed the Quran, and the people must judge by it, irrespective of the fact that the Gospel and Torah are present, even though in their corrupted forms. The Quran states that the new revelation confirms the Torah and Gospel and guards them.
That is why the whole passage ends in 5:69 with a statement that success in the Hereafter is independant of any appellation, so long as one is obedient to God's revelations throughout time. Rejecting the last Revelation does not only result in rejecting their own scriptures. It also entails rejection of Gabriel who has revealed it to the Prophet's heart by Allah's Command, not by his own wish. So they were ultimately disbelieving in God
6:33,2:98"Whoever is the enemy of Gabriel for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah's Command, verifying that which is before it, and guidance and good news for the believers. Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Gabriel and Michael - so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers".
To reject any messenger, as is here stated concerning Moses against whom the Israelites rebelled 44:19 is equal to rejecting the One that sent him. Similarily, Gabriel is one of Allah's honored servants, just like Michael and others; they have no authority except to follow and obey the Divine Commands. That is why the Quran speaks of the belief in the carriers and transmitters of revelation -angels or human messengers- as an article of faith 2:177,285.
The verse 2:98 exposes another side of the Israelites' rejection. Their hatred and grudge against Muhammad's prophethood took them to the extent of inventing the tale that Gabriel was an enemy of theirs because he was the Angel of destruction. This in their eyes was among the justified reasons for rejecting Islam. Had the angelic messenger been Michael, who brings prosperity, they would have believed. Whether Islam was true or false, this argument was ludicrous. Angelic messengers, as corroborated in their own books, have no free will and act only according to God's directives. They do not willingly take sides, much less among humans.
That opposition to God's envoys, in reality is due to a dislike of the message they bring 38:8. This is exemplified in the opposition the prophet Muhammad had to face. His opponents tried to make him compromise the message in exchange of their alliegance, which he of course never did.
Belief in all prophets equally is an article of faith 3:84. To reject one is to reject all, considering that, besides all of them coming with the same tenets of faith and refering to the same One God, all of them, except for the first prophet sent to mankind, claimed spiritual descendancy from a line of prophets
26:105,25:37"And the people of Nuh, when they rejected the messengers (plural), We drowned them, and made them a sign for men, and We have prepared a painful punishment for the unjust".
Any distinction or rejection of any of them is a denial of all of them and the rejection of the very One who sent them 2:136-7 an act of rebellion severly condemned 4:150-2. This is rooted in the principle that all revelations are one in essence
46:9,21:7-10,29:47,4:163"Surely We have revealed to you as We revealed to Nuh, and the prophets after him, and We revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and Isa and Ayub and Yunus and Haroun and Sulaiman and We gave to Dawood Psalms".
It isn't simply believing in Muhammad that entails faith and one cannot be a Muslim, claiming that it is sufficient to believe in him. All Prophets represent the will of the Lord and must be equally believed.
In answer to the video "Why the Quran Was Revealed in Arabic (David Wood)"
The corruption of the HB and NT is a historical fact. This corruption is not dictated upon what the Quran says, i.e. it is an objective reality. The Quran simply confirms this objective reality. Even if, for argument's sake we assume that the Quran endorses the Bible's authenticity, despite it speaking of the corrupt writings of the Jewish scribes and the singular Injil of Jesus, which has nothing to do with the multiple Gospels and other Greek writings assembled into the NT, then there is still the inescapable notion of the Quran superseding and abrogating previous revealed, authentic laws and scriptures.
The corruption of the Bible is nothing but the natural outcome of the moral degeneration of the Bani Israel, their heedlessness and carelessness in matters of religion, confirming Moses' predictions Deut31:25-29, Jeremiah's and other prophets' accusations, their lamentations Isa48:8.
The Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1950 in Jordan are dated between 150 BCE and 70 CE meaning there is still over 1000 years of history between this time period and the time of Moses, let alone Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. But this is besides the point since no Torah was found among the scrolls of Qumran nor any book of the NT. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain many non-canonical manuscripts such as the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, additional psalms, etc., that were not ultimately canonized, as well as "Sectarian" speaking of the beliefs of smaller groups within Judaism. There is even a Book in the canonized Bible that is not found in the DSS, namely the Book of Esther. Less than 40% of the documents found are classified as Biblical. The oldest known Torah fragment is from the silver scrolls dating back to 700BCE and contains Numbers 6:24-26.
The written Torah was completely destroyed, along with the first Temple. It was rewritten by Ezra through "divine miracle" according to Jewish traditions, obviously as it was majoritarly forgotten despite their claims of unbroken chain of transmission up to Moses. In fact there are even indications of that "chain" having broken even in the first or second generation following Moses
Judges2:10"After that whole generation had been gathered to their ancestors, another generation grew up who knew neither the Lord nor what he had done for Israel".
This is unsurprising, why would one expect a people to remain faithful to Moses' teachings and preserve them accurately years following his death when during his own lifetime, his 40 days absence was enough to make them revert to idol worship, despite having just witnessed all kinds of supernatural occurrences testifying to the truth of what he was bringing. In light of all that they were made to witness from miracles and guidance, one would expect them to be sincerely obedient to God and deeply united yet the opposite happened.
From the onset, there was not a single fundamental thing of religion to which they adhered. They had serious differences in every aspect of religion; so much so, they lost many of them just because of this attitude. And if it was so that early on in their history when they had been freshly established and tied to God with a covenant then what is to say of the later times filled with troubles, wars, exiles and enslavement? Or as is said in the Talmud of tradition given to Moses at Sinai and then forgotten,
“they were forgotten and re-established” (Sukkah 44a, Megillah 3a).
To successfully achieve this re-establishment the rabbis openly state it is acceptable to resort to sophistry (Ketubot 103b). A similar example to Ezra is that of Otniel son of Kenaz who is credited with "restoring" some 3000 laws that were forgotten during the mourning over Moses’ death and other
"1700 analogies from minor to major, analogies by equivalent words, and obligations derived from a meticulous scrutiny of the Scriptural text were forgotten during the mourning over Moses’ death" (Temurah 16a).
There are other examples attesting not only to forgetfulness as to the contents of the books, let alone complete despise towards them Hos8:12, but also to their whereabouts. For example during the reign of Joshiah and while the Temple was being repaired, the high priest came across a manuscript not knowing what it was until it was presented to the King who rent his clothes apart upon recognizing it 2kings22. Interestingly, that period of 7th century BCE coincides with the time critical Biblical scholarship places the composition of the current HB. It is important to emphasize, the text says what was found was "the" Torah not "a" Torah.
Talmudic rabbis explain this difficulty by stating that the uniqueness of this find, and the fact nobody knew a priori what it was, doesnt mean no other Torah was in circulation, rather that it was written in a forgotten script very few could read. Consequently the king whose subjects had sunk into idolatry sent emissaries to
“Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us”.
This specific Torah, according to the Damascus Document, was none other than the original Torah fully revealed to Moses and sealed in the Ark of the Covenant 5 centuries ago in the times of Joshua. The detailed, written law was unknown to the masses all that time. The Ark itself was lost to the Phillistines and in the times of Solomon, its sole contents were the 2 tablets 1Kings8:9.
There are also mention of entire pieces having been purposely burned by the corrupt elite, such as the scroll of Jeremiah Jer36:23, and even though it was re-written later Jer36:27-32, it reveals the complete careless attitude of the community's most prominent figures towards sacred texts. Jeremiah, Hosea and others often lamented at their behavior and manipulations Jer8:8,Hosea4:6etc
Too many factors have accumulated leading to the physical loss of the entire Torah, since the breaking of the oral transmission chain right after Moses, followed by blatant neglectfulness if not purposeful destruction of scriptures and their misinterpretations resulting in a faulty and corrupt oral tradition, combined with their successive massacres, destruction of their holiest sites and writings, forced exiles and assimilation into foreign cultures and all elements are there for the loss of the original. Hence the claims of divine intervention through Ezra to restore it, even having to transliterate the hebrew into Aramaic so the people would be able to read.
Ezra was the founder of the "Great Assembly", the institution that provided religious guidance to the Jews during the second temple era (520BCE – 70CE). These 120 men are said to have "finalized" the Hebrew Bible and enacted many laws, under the prophet Ezra's authority who was divinely inspired. They, after much debates, decided what to include in the final canon of the Tanakh/Hebrew bible. This era however is covered in darkness and not much is known of what was happening with the Jewish community. The identity of these “Men of the Great Assembly” isnt even known.
In fact Israelite tradition isnt even sure in which language the Torah was given to them originally, whether it was ancient Hebrew, Assyrian, or Samaritan or whether it was later changed to Samaritan as a punishment (Sanhedrin 21b,22a,Y'rushalmi M'gillah 10a - chapter 1 halachah 9). In the process, they even forgot how to pronounce God's name hence the use of the tetragammaton. What is agreed upon is that upon his return from the Babylonian exile and into Israel, Ezra rewrote the HB in Hebrew but using the Aramaic alphabet (the lingua franca of those days). Their level of forgetfulness, as reflected in the issue of the language of revelation also reflects in their forgetfulness of the correct forms of certain ending letters, which made it impossible for them to recall the laws of Moses alluded to earlier until the intervention of Otniel son of Kenaz (Shabbat 104a).
The Talmudic rabbis basically just decided on the letter forms to use, giving the current meaning to the text. Even though all Jews and rabbis agree to the rule which forbids the innovation of anything not said at Sinai, things can be recalled through discourse or any other means available, and the conclusion will be considered as having been given at Sinai.
The result is a Torah text nowadays far from being monolithic. There are 3 different Torah editions (Koren, Adi/Leningrad, Mosad HaRav Kook) each meticulously proofread from dozens of Torah scrolls on parchment then reproduced based on majority concordances between these scrolls. These 3 editions however have over 100 letter differences among them, which leaves one wondering as to the number of differences between the scrolls which were used by the proofreaders, if after all their efforts there were still 100+ letter differences.
That is without even getting into the issue of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, words of the midrash and the Zohar, showing that the Torah scrolls the Tanaaim (10-220CE) and Amoraim (200-500CE) had before them were different from the texts we have. This, as a side note, discredits the modern phenomenon of seeking Torah codes in a text whose original is unknown: one who works codes according to the Leningrad text or the Zohar text or according to the text used in the Talmud and the midrash will find, in each text, different results.
It is an undisputed fact that;
- there are parts of the Torah that must have been written long after Moses' death (Burial, Dan, etc)
- that Ezra at least re-introduced the people to the Torah (see Nehemia8) if not added rituals to festivals such as "Sukkot" that the Jews never knew about until he showed up Neh8:17 while the details of this ritual are found in Lev23 which was supposedly written by Moses.
- that Ezra is known as "the scribe", compared to none other than the one who received the Law, ie Moses who is seen as the greatest of prophets in the Talmud Sanhedrin 21b-22a
- that even in the mainstream Jewish tradition there is acceptance that Ezra at least made minor edits to the Torah
- that there is an entire book from 2,000 years ago (albeit a few hundred years after Ezra's time) that claims Ezra wrote the current version of the Torah (2Esdras14). The Talmud states:
“Reish Lakish said, ‘at first the Torah was forgotten by Israel; Ezra came from Babylon and established it'” (Sukkah 20a).
- that Ezra initiated the particulars of the prayer ritual
Medieval rabbis could not counter Muslim polemics regarding the corruption of their scriptures as there exists no foundational narrative to the genesis of the text, how these Scriptures came into being and were shaped as a book. There is no explicit “transmission chain” self-referentially described in the Hebrew Bible or in post-biblical canonical literature. Medieval Karaites, Jews that only adhered to the written Torah, exposed the embarrassing traditions which the rabbis hid in these interfaith discussions with Muslims. Karaism was in fact born in Muslim lands. By interacting with Muslims Jews became aware of the problems related to the preservation of their HB, as is reported in their rabbinic traditions.
Thus in answer to Muslim polemics, they would primarily attack these Jewish traditions, in an effort to blot out the embarrassing parts and re-write the transmission history of the text. Qirqisani, the leading Karaite theologian and exegete of Baghdad said
"They (the Rabbanites) assert that the Torah which is in the hands of the people is not the Torah which Moses – on whom be peace – brought, but was composed by Ezra, for they say that the Torah brought by Moses perished and was lost and disappeared. This amounts to the destruction of the whole religion. Were the Muslims to learn of this, they would need nothing else with which to revile and confute us, for some of their theologians argue against us, saying: “Your Torah is not the Torah brought to Moses.” Against one who makes this claim we proclaim that he is lying out of a desire to contradict, and that they are reduced to this because they have nothing to say and need an argument. But were they to discover this teaching of the Rabbanites – may God forgive them – the field would be open to them and they would need nothing else".
To this, he offers the poor reply that
"There are two implications to this (claim) – one is that he who changed this (the text of the Bible) and altered it was wiser and more knowledgeable than the prophets who wrote it; and it is extremely implausible that Ezra and Nehemiah were wiser than Moses, may he rest in peace,..and wiser than the Creator..and if it were so that he changed Scripture and altered it and took out of it what was not found to be of benefit, would the shamefulness remain in its place and the disgracefulness not be removed? All the more so if what they say, namely, that the Torah which is in our hands was collated and composed by Ezra – if this were so, and there was no one besides him that would have compelled him to say that this was so and (to say) “I am the one who has changed it and fashioned it in this way”– he could have just (re-)written it in the way he wanted and left the matter hidden, without informing anyone that he had changed it!"
Karaites deflected Muslim accusations of tahrif of their Hebrew Bible, by implying that if there is a form of falsification in Judaism, it only occured in the oral Torah, the books of the Mishnah and Talmud. It was necessary to them to reject the oral Torah's preservation so as to deny the information it contained as regards the written Torah's corruption. Eventually Karaism was declared a heresy by the rabbis, due to its denial of the authenticity of the oral tradition. The movement failed gaining dominance due to several factors; the Jewish people's turbulent history of oppression and exile, raised their rabbinic authorities as heroes of preservation and survival in the face of the complete annihilation of their identity. That mentality of the layman perdured in time due to Judaism's position as a minority religion, forcing it to dilute ideological dissent so as to retain a sense of community and survive. Also, Jewish Karaism had a strong zionist ideology. The demolition of their Jerusalem center by the Crusade of 1099 proved this ideology unattainable and brought about their dispersal and absorption in the Karaite pockets of Egypt, Byzantium and Spain.
In answer to the video "Why the Quran Was Revealed in Arabic (David Wood)"
3:78"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"
6:91"the Book which Musa brought, a light and a guidance to men, which you make into scattered writings which you show while you conceal much".
Just to corroborate what this verse is saying, The rabbinical world is divided up to this day on whether their sacred texts should be shared with non-Jews. There is consensus that non-Jews may study the Torah as far as the noachide laws are concerned. These laws are considered binding on all of humanity.
The mosaic laws on the other hand concern strictly the Jewish people, hence the oddity of Pauline doctrine and its obsession with freeing mankind from a cursed law that isnt binding on anyone but Jews. Rabbinic opinion suggest that besides the noachide laws, only general and vague answers may be provided to a non-Jew inquiring about the Torah. The prohibition is discussed in the Talmud, which is considered God-given to Moses. The Talmud itself is on a higher level of restriction with even Jewish women forbidden from attempting to learn it due to the household activities they are expected to fulfill
2:75"but when they find themselves alone with one another, they say. "Do you inform them of what God has disclosed to you, so that they might use it in argument against you, quoting the words of your Sustainer?"
3:187"And when Allah made a covenant with those who were given the Book: You shall certainly make it known to men and you shall not hide it; but they cast it behind their backs and took a small price for it; so evil is that which they buy".
2:75-79 "..and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this)..And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but only lies, and they do but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!--Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby".
The Quran in those verses points to several types of misusing the scriptures;
-those who conceal the greater part of the book, reluctantly sharing as little as they can 6:91
-those who throw it completely behind their backs, ignoring it so as to not compromise some worldly profit. In the process, they are also guilty of failing to make it known to the world, as per their function of being the torch bearers of the truth to mankind 3:187.
-those who misinterpret the word of Allah after having fully understood it 2:75. Whether that information was canonized or not is irrelevant. This misinterpretation thus concerns both oral and written material. In Medina, members of the Jewish community were sent to the prophet Muhammad, by their religious authorities, with a hidden agenda. They were trying to settle grave disputes in matters heavily punishable in the light of the Torah. This was just another of their ploys to avoid its harsh laws, which they perfectly understood, hoping that the prophet might have a different ruling
"they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious".
This compromising, complacent attitude is a deeply ingrained transgression they have been committing ever since the law was bestowed upon them and throughout their history, despite the scolding of the prophets and the few righteous remnants among them whom the Quran mentions and praises
7:169-170"Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the Book, taking only the frail good of this low life and saying: It will be forgiven us. And if the like good came to them, they would take it (too). Was not a promise taken from them in the Book that they would not speak anything about Allah but the truth, and they have read what is in it; and the abode of the hereafter is better for those who guard (against evil). Do you not then understand? And as for those who hold fast by the Book and keep up prayer, surely We do not waste the reward of the righteous"
Virtually all prophets that came to them decried the corruption of their elite, their neglect towards their own justice system
"A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess".
According to another version, when the Torah was brought to the prophet who was now seeking to expose the innovations of the rabbis in the specific matter of punishment for adultery, he first respectfully put it on a cushion then said
"I believed in you and in Him Who revealed you".
A holistic understand of both the hadith corpus and the Quran demonstrates that this statement of the prophet is not to be taken in the absolute sense. When in Medina he noticed that Jews would come and read the Torah and explain it to the Muslims, he advised them to adopt a neutral stance, neither believing nor disbelieving in it
"Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' "
This is because the scriptures of the Jews are an amalgam of truth and falsehood, the truthful parts being covered by the statement "whatever is revealed to you". Ibn Abbas would reprimand the Muslims who would seek information from the people of the book in religious matters, on the basis that
"Allah has told you that the people of the scripture 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. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?"
The Quran, the prophet, the companions therefore all advise caution when approaching the previous scriptures, as they contain both truth, which the prophet confirmed and revered in the aforementioned statements, and falsehood.
The prophet then proceeded with exposing the learned ones by making them read by themselves the truthful part of the Torah which they had been hiding
"Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning".
This hadith depicting the prophet's reverence for the Torah should this be understood in light of other ahadith, as well as the many Quran passages stating that the Torah isnt absolutely corrupt, that despite the manipulations it still contains remnants of truth, hence the Quran being its guardian/muhaymin. The prophet declared his belief not in the entire Torah, but in the specific ruling on the punishment for adultery, and which Ibn Salam, the Jewish convert to Islam instantly recognized as the "divine verse".
It is this corruption in the absolute sense, which some scholars might have been referring to when they said, while commenting on the above report
"if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you".
This is speaking of complete corruption, which is not what the Muslims believe happened to previous scriptures and traditions.
In legal issues, Jews and Christians living in the Muslim state are not bound by the Islamic law when resolving their own internal affairs. That is how matters were conducted in many parts of the Muslim empire. Dhimmis could deliberate, individually deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, so long as no conflict occurred between the 2. The historical, and clear Quranic context of these verses 5:41-50 is that of legal retribution. As stated earlier, it begins by telling the prophet that he was not under any obligation to judge their matters when they came to him insincerely, meaning to seek different and more lenient verdicts than what is found in their traditions. It is to be noted that in matters of equal retribution the Quran says that the oppressed or the victim may show magnanimity and forgiveness in order to grow spiritually, an issue the Torah, which also mentions the law of retaliation, does not contain in its proper context. The passage continues telling the prophet that he may turn them away if he wishes, leaving them to resolve their own disputes. But he is nevertheless to judge between them with equity should he decide so, notwithstanding their severe enmity towards him and the fact they were always plotting with the enemies of Islam with the hope of uprooting and exterminating it. What the prophet did at that point was to masterfully expose them for their corrupt mindframe. Had they came to him in truth, he would have judged them in accordance to the Quran, the last revelation superseding all previous ones. But due to their hypocritical stand towards both the Quran, which they didnt believe in, and their own scriptures, whose clear rulings they denied, he referred them back to the law of their Torah, thereby exposing this double game. One might come back with the question that, if the Torah and Injil are corrupt, as the Quran, traditions and history itself attest, why tell Jews and Christians to judge their own internal affairs in light of those scriptures? The answer is firstly because they are not obligated to believe in anything other than what they want to believe. If it suits them to remain in their faith, despite the Quran coming and exposing their falsehood, then they are free to do so. Second, that corruption is not absolute, the passage itself tells them the Torah and Injil contain guidance and light. How then are they to distinguish the right from the wrong?
5:48"And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it".
The Quran is the criterion, confirming certain parts OF/MIN those scriptures, ie those parts containing guidance and light. The last revelation came down showing them the truth and falsehood of their books, the abrogated and the valid. This isnt circular reasoning as the things which the Quran confirms from the Bible are for the most part empirically testable, prophecies, past events and stories whose Quranic version make more sense in light of data both external (archaeology, manuscripts etc) and internal (contradictions) to the biblical text that expose the distortions of the transmitters of the Bible.
Once again:
1. the Quran clearly says that the corruption of previous scriptures and traditions, canonized or not, is not absolute
2. reference to previous traditions doesnt entail full endorsement or that they are wholly true, just as is the case with the Bible's known use of apocryphal material
3. there is no circularity in determining truth from corruption in light of the Quran, as the parallel passages and references can be for the most part independently attested. When for example a common story or principle is internally and externally contradictory in its biblical version but is internally coherent, consistent philosophically, theologically, ethically, with many times even scientific and archaeological backing in its Quranic version, then the probability is that the Quran is in the right.
4. the Quran doesnt need to go around fact checking everything stated in past written and oral traditions so as to determine truth from corruption. When certain broad principles and stories common to both the Quran and previous traditions are established as more sensical in their Quranic version, then big swaths of these previous traditions become highly questionable too.
5. then there is the personality of the message bearer, his high degree of credibility among his nation, the miracles he performed, the miraculous aspect of the Quran, still testable today (contrary to prophetic miracles, including those of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad that are lost in time), all major reasons for its contemporaries to pay very close attention to its statements and give it the benefit of the doubt.
That is why the Quran then continues saying that, although the option of judging their matters in light of their scriptures if they reject the Quran's authority is their full right, they will be held accountable for it
5:49"And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient".
As the prophet told Umar
"I have come to you with that which is pure and clear proof. And if Musa was alive, and then you were to follow him and abandon following me, you would certainly have strayed".
If the last revelation supersedes the previous one even if the previous one is still in its pristine state, delivered by its prophet, then how much more should the Quran be authoritative over the previous revelations in their corrupt state?
-those who misinterpret the book after having fully understood it 2:75
-the uneducated/ummiyun, who have no access to the text and therefore only know the distorted lies of the learned ones 2:78
-those who alter the book physically, passing off their modifications as coming from God 2:79. These alterations may be additions and/or subtractions. Al-kitab, the writing/book alludes to a specific text, as the definite article implies, which is subjected to physical corruption. Al kitab is used for the Bible in the same sura. The Quran accuses the Jews of misinterpreting Al kitab while claiming it is from God 3:78 in reference to the HB, just as it exposes the physical corruption of Al kitab 2:79 in reference to the HB. This accusation the Quran makes is the climax of scriptural abuse, fitting into its overall polemic against Jews and Christians. Interestingly, we find similar statements as regards the integrity of the biblical text among early Christians themselves. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew made that exact accusation against the Jewish elite whose responsibility was to preserve the Hebrew Bible.
Ibn Abbas, in comment to the verse 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 Allah's 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".
However there is another statement attributed to ibn abbas saying
“No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it”.
This is a known defective narration, without any chain of reporters, as noted by the scholars of hadith, including Al Asqalani. What can at most be construed from that statement, assuming it is authentic for argument's sake, is that the incorruptibility is in reference to the heavenly tablet. It can obviously not be speaking of the worldly text which anyone can change. The Quran says all the revealed scriptures are inscribed in umm al kitab/the mother book, inscribed on the heavenly tablet. None can change the words therein but only twist their meaning. Ibn Kathir understood that nuance between the 2 ahadith of ibn Abbas very well. He quotes the weak hadith in his tafsir of 3:78 which speaks of oral misinterpretation. But he also refers to ibn Abbas' authentic comment on 2:79 that speaks of textual corruption by the people of the book. Ibn Kathir quotes other companion views on 2:79, including that of Uthman saying that
"they (the Jews) distorted the Torah. They added to it what they liked and erased from it what they hated and they erased the name of Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah and for that Allah became angry".
Ibn Kathir and the earliest Muslim belief regarding the oral and textual corruption of the Bible is therefore clearly established, based on the Quran itself. That Muslim position is even reflected in the polemical writings of John of Damascus, some 100 years after the prophet's death
"But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost".
As already noted, anyone can remove and alter words from any worldly text at any point in time. And if that is done when not enough human and textual witnesses can independently detect that corruption, then it can easily be disseminated and passed off as true. That is what happened during the successive destructions of the Israelite nation, followed by the attempts of their scribes to re-write what was lost. Al-Razi rightly noted
"It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible".
Al-Razi here is talking of a time when previous scriptures, although in their corrupt state (see his commentary on 5:41), were already widely disseminated and could be independently attested by countless witnesses. Nobody could remove Allah's word nor any other man-made word from it then, without being detected. Corruption of the Torah at that point became only possible through misinterpretation.
Similarly, some stated that the Torah cannot be corrupted, based on the verse saying God's words cannot be changed 6:115. Again, any worldly copy of the Torah can be altered. But so long as there exists the possibility for the original to be reproduced, God's words remain unaffected, only the copy of these words.
The Quran is the speech of Allah, and that speech is with Allah, uncreated, eternal, unchanged like any other attribute of His. The analogy of God's speech to the Quran we touch with our hands or recite from our minds, is as God's mercy which manifests in tangible and abstract things. Both types of manifestations are created means through which God's uncreated attributes of speech and mercy are made known to humans. These attributes arent limited to those particular manifestations
31:27"and If all the trees on the earth were pens, and the sea replenished with seven more seas [were ink], the words of Allah would not be spent".
God's speech is therefore unexhaustive. It can potentially bring into existence a limitless number of words of revelation, among them the Hebrew Torah of Moses or the Arabic Quran of Muhammad
14:4"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly".
Allah further states about the revelation to Muhammad, that He
43:3"made it an Arabic Quran".
The eternal speech of Allah takes on in this world the form that is relevant to the divine purpose. The Arabic Quran was thus not continuously spoken since eternity. It is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of speech. Just like we may say a healthy newborn is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of mercy.
Assuming for argument's sake that all things in the heavens and the earth are destroyed, including all Torahs and Qurans, the mother of the book that contains all revelations, and even the preserved tablet/lawh mahfuz. So long as the potential to generate a true Quran and Torah exists, then Allah's words that were revealed to Moses and Muhammad remain unaffected. As stated earlier, the physical and abstract things in which God's attributes manifest in this world do not exhaust the attributes themselves, neither do these manifestations share the uncreated essence of the attributes they are representing. This is the problem of Trinitarians. Jesus, a created being, is not merely a manifestation of God's word, rather he incarnates it fully, becoming this divine "person" with contradictory attributes Trinitarian thinkers have been struggling to explain for over 2000 years. Christians are quick to try and parallel the notion of uncreatedness of God's speech as manifested in the Quran, with their idea derived from the Gospel of John where God's uncreated word manifested in Jesus. The two concepts, arent comparable. Further, why would trinitarians even need the Quran to explain the logical and philosophical problems of their theology.
Not a single group within Islam says the Quran was a separate entity floating around next to God since eternity past. This is how some Christians, with their trinitarian worldview, misrepresent the statement that the word of Allah is uncreated. In Christianity, the word is not an attribute but a divine person among others like the father and holy spirit, each with distinct attributes. One man with multiple attributes isnt many men just as One God with multiple attributes isnt many gods. This is tawhid. Yet Trinity says each person is divine but with different attributes, resulting in 3 different gods. The analogy Christians attempt between tawhid and trinity stops at the word of God being eternal. Christians made that word a person with attributes among other distinct persons, while Muslims kept the word as an attribute among others within the essence of the One God. As an aside, since the word or speech of God is not an attribute within the divine essence but a separate divine entity along with 2 others, does it mean that only this divine entity called "word or speech" has the ability to speak and that the other 2 divine entities are mute?
If God's word is a separate divine entity that became flesh in Jesus, what about the words uttered by Jesus who is now divine? Are his words separate divine entities? Further, if the Torah is God's word, as Jews and Christians believe, does that make it divine as Jesus is? These are the kinds of problems Trinitarians are entangled with due to their conjectures on ambiguous matters, instead of relying on firm statements on God's oneness and unity. Muslims on the other hand, despite the early disputes as to whether the Quran was created or not, never went out of the way to declare the attributes of God, like His word, separate divine entities. No Muslim ever believed God's speech to be a separate conscious part. The reason why this issue is often brought up by Trinitarians is that the Quran is the only book that claims to be Allah's direct speech. The Bible doesnt make that claim. The closest one finds is an anonymous claim made about Jesus being God's word. Muslims on the other hand stick to clear and firm statements of scriptures to define their cardinal beliefs, including that "nothing is like a likeness of Him".
2:79 is a timeless warning, addressed to any corrupt scribes among the Jews who would in addition reap profit from such an evil deed. It is not specific to the Jews of the time of the prophet. This means, although that type of corruption did occur, it may have happened before or during the prophet's time as well as both. No contemporary 7th century Jewish writing has survived so as to compare with older manuscripts to know whether this was done during the time of the prophet. And even if such 7th century writing is found, agreeing with older manuscripts, then it still does not negate that the corruption might have occured much longer before the prophet's time. Another thing to note is that this verse doesnt target the writings of the Christians. The books that these groups follow are not the singular Gospel of Jesus of which the Quran speaks. As the Quran repeatedly says, they follow but mere conjecture. This conjecture has taken the shape of the Greek writings compiled as the New Testament. They are writings that interpret and re-interpret Jesus' words and singular Gospel, giving them a completely different intent. Sometimes this conjecture doesnt take for basis Jesus' Gospel at all, such as with the notion of human depravity and sin atonement. The Quran thus appropriately tells the Christians to abide by the singular Gospel of Jesus to find the right path that will lead them to the truth of the Quran.
When they did so, in contrast to the corrupt aforementioned groups, when they remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability, then their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led them to inevitably believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. This is what occured in the times of the prophet, even among their most learned figures, just as it occurred throughout time and in our days. The Quran thus expects the Jews and Christians to recognize the truth based on what is in their hands first and foremost. The prophethood of Muhammad and the truth revealed to him make ample theological sense within their own written and oral traditions.
When they behaved with insincerity, hypocrisy towards their books 2:85, then despite having sources of light and guidance in their hands, it availed them nothing "The Torah and the Gospel are with the Jews and the Christians but what do they avail of them?" (Tirmidhi 2653). They become followers of deliberate corruption and lies, or mislead by conjecture.
The term Muhayminan, derived from H-M-N means witness and arbiter where the arbiter would be the one to let know which is right and wrong. Besides witnessing and arbitrating it carries at the same time the notion of protecting. So, when the book that came to Muhammad is declared as muhayminan upon the book it means it is the ultimate arbiter in case of dispute or potential misunderstanding in regards to whatever came before it. It declares what truly came from God vs what truly is not from God
45:16-8"And We did certainly give the Children of Israel the Scripture and judgement and prophethood, and We provided them with good things and preferred them over the worlds. And We gave them clear proofs of the matter [of religion]. And they did not differ except after knowledge had come to them - out of jealous animosity between themselves. Indeed, your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ. Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on an ordained way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know".
We see the same pattern of Allah revealing a system, those supposed to uphold it end up turning away from it, in addition causing its corruption. Hence the need for the religion to be restored through the revelation of a new system.
