| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In my comments on Daniel Pipes' article on Allah and God yesterday, I wrote this:
It is not actually Islamic doctrine that, as Pipes says, "Moses and Jesus introduced mistakes to the Word of God." Their followers did that. The Qur'an, addressing Muhammad and the Muslims, says of the Jews: "Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly?" (2:75). This verse, combined with the fact that the Old and New Testaments do not bear witness to Muhammad as he expected, have led mainstream Muslim theologians to extend the charge of willfully perverting the Scriptures to Christians as well, although the charge is not made against Christians in the Qur'an.
In response, a frequent reader of Jihad Watch wrote this to me:
I've never really heard a Muslim ever say that the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament were transmitted perfectly at first, and only later corrupted. They don't give the Bible even that much credit, it seems.
While this is true of many -- particularly modern -- Muslim commentators, it is not true across the board. Why does this matter? Because if, as Pipes says, "Moses and Jesus introduced mistakes to the Word of God," their followers cannot be held responsible. But if it was the followers who supposedly corrupted what had been pure Scriptures, then they bear the guilt for their act. And indeed, one of the meanings in Arabic of the word dhimmi is guilty people. One of the sources of their guilt is this alleged corruption of the Scriptures -- which indicates how deeply the concepts of the dhimma are embedded within Islam. (And for the thousandth time, if that is not faced it cannot be dealt with. If Muslim reformers are sincere, let them acknowledge this and work to eradicate it.)
Anyway, here is some evidence for my position. Not only have Muslims said to me personally that the Torah (Taurat) and Gospel (Injil) were transmitted perfectly at first, and only later corrupted, it is in the Qur'an:
"And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)." (5:46)
This verse assumes an uncorrupted Injil (containing "guidance and light") given to Jesus, confirming an uncorrupted Taurat given to Moses.
Cf. the classic Qur'an commentator Ibn Kathir on Qur'an 5:13:
"They change the words from their (right) places...) Since their comprehension became corrupt, they behaved treacherously with Allah's Ayat, altering His Book from its apparent meanings which He sent down, and distorting its indications. They attributed to Allah what He did not say, and we seek refuge with Allah from such behavior."
Thus Allah sent it down perfectly to Moses, and the Jews supposedly later altered it "from its apparent meanings which He sent down."
Likewise also another classic commentary, or tafsir, that of Al-Tabari, on Qur'an 2:75:
"...God states that it was a group of those who heard God's speech who did the altering [thereby] stressing the gravity of the lie they brought, after He had confirmed the proof and demonstration for them; and He notified His believing servants of the vanity of their hopes about the faith of their surviving descendants in the truth, light, and guidance which Muhammad brought them. Thus He said to them: 'How can you expect these Jews to affirm your truthfulness, when you inform them by what you tell them of something invisible which they have not witnessed or seen? Some of them heard from God His command and prohibition, then changed it and altered it and denied it. Those of their surviving descendants who are among you are more likely to deny the truth you have brought them, not having heard it from God but only from you; and it is more probable that they will alter the qualities and description of your prophet, Muhammad, in their scriptures, and change them wittingly, and then deny him and give him the lie. [They are more likely to do this than their predecessors who heard the speech of God directly from God; they altered it after they had understood it and known it, intentionally altering it]..."
"They heard from God His command and prohibition" -- which means they received it uncorrupted -- "and then they changed it and altered it and denied it." "They" of course obviously refers here to the Jews, not to Moses.
Here also is Ibn Kathir on Qur'an 5:46:
"...We made the Injil guidance and an admonition that prohibits committing sins and errors, for those who have Taqwa of Allah and fear His warning and torment. Allah said next, (Let the people of the Injil judge by what Allah has revealed therein.) meaning, so that He judges the people of the Injil by it in their time. Or, the Ayah means, so that they believe in all that is in it and adhere to all its commands, including the good news about the coming of Muhammad and the command to believe in and follow him when he is sent."
If people were ever to judge by the Injil, it must in this view have existed uncorrupted at some point.
In fact, some ancient Muslim commentators insist that the Gospel was never corrupted. This doesn't mitigate Christian guilt -- these commentators see the Christian refusal to accept Muhammad as conferring guilt upon them in any case. Often they see the Christian New Testament as it stands as bearing witness to Muhammad, and charge the Christians with perversity for not acknowledging that. Here is Ibn Khazem, writing in 1064 AD:
Since the Quran must be true it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad....The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which God has left intact as argument against them.
Other authorities who accepted the Injil as authentic: Al-Tabari, Amr al-Ghakhiz, Al-Bukhari, Al-Mas'udi, Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina, Al-Ghazzali, Ibn Khaldun, and more recently, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, about whom I wrote in Onward Muslim Soldiers. He wrote: "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced." Likewise Fakhruddin Razi: "The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation."
The upshot of all this is that it reinforces the idea, as Pipes puts it, that "Islam views Judaism and Christianity as flawed versions of itself, correct on essentials but wrong in important details." No non-Muslim should enter into "inter-faith dialogue" without a clear awareness of that fact.
Posted by Robert at June 29, 2005 1:18 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Ok, so when verses are abbrogated in the Muslim scripture...their deity transmitted it corrupted in the first place? Changed its mind? What exactly was the condition of the verses that were abbrogated? Corrupted to start?
Posted by: Abby![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 29, 2005 2:38 PM
Robert,
It seems no matter which way this is pie is cut it comes out saying "moslems good infadels bad". Either interpretation works seemlessly with jihad, dhimmitude and sharia.
I'm not a scholar of koran, but nothing I've seen, read or heard, from any source, offers an interpretation of the koran that is peaceful or tolerant of non-believers beyond dhimmitude.
Do you, as a man knowledgeable of koran, see any way it can be interpreted peacefully, either by making certain verses parable rather than literal or stressing certain portions that are currently being ignored?
The reason I ask is that I would like to know if there is a way to reform the way islam is practiced should we someday succeed in defeating them in battle or by some other means. Once the moslems are conquered (wishful thinking here) something will need to fill the religious void, and if there is a way that sharia, dhimmitude and jihad can be expunged from islam, while still allowing the defeated moslems to have something to hold onto, it would make the liberation much more effective.
at June 29, 2005 2:54 PM
the fact that the Old and New Testaments do not bear witness to Muhammad as he expected
Muhammad was illiterate. He got his information on Christianity from Syriac-speaking (and Syriac bible using) Nestorians. His info on Judiaism was from what we today call Sephardic Jews (probably ancestors of what we call the Yemenite Jews).
While the Bible certainly does not 'bear witness' to Muhammad (tho' some exegetes will strain themselves and attempt to point out Muhammad as a kind of Antichrist or the such), I'd like to know exactly what Robert meant by the passage I quote. Did Muhammad actually have the whole of the OT and NT read to him to learn he was not fortold, or did he just believe his Christian and Jewish contacts?
Muhammad was quite pissed at the Jews (the very first part of the Koran is a rant against them) for not acknowledging him as a prophet.
Posted by: Loxias at June 29, 2005 3:10 PM
Madzionist: The reason I ask is that I would like to know if there is a way to reform the way islam is practiced
I doubt it.
The intellectual climate inside Islam (and inside Islamic countries) would forbid it.
Christians and Jews have largely renounced violence, and insist that government keep itself at arm's length from religion. We have institutionalized/constitutionalized a degree of anti-clericalism in our systems, while the Muslims have not.
Posted by: Loxias at June 29, 2005 3:24 PM
Well for me the perennial apologist Mr. Pipes has gone of the rails .I tired a long time ago explaining has idiotic assertions that he had concocted out of myths known only to himself.
One has to assume he has gone native or his loved ones are being held by CAIR and scimitar point.
at June 29, 2005 3:32 PM
Jesus buddy ever hear about looking at the screen before you hit post ?
It wont make any differance cause you cant spell but try it anyway asshat
Well for me the perennial apologist Mr. Pipes has gone off the rails .I tired a long time ago explaining his idiotic assertions that he had concocted out of myths known only to himself.
One has to assume he has gone native or his loved ones are being held by CAIR at scimitar point.
at June 29, 2005 4:21 PM
Given my own methologicial assumptions, I think any religious analysis of why "Islam can't get along with his playmates" is backards. Muslims made Islam imperialist, they did not become imperalists because of Islam. The so-called doctrine of corruption is just Muslim imperialism waged on the intellectual front, with the same contempt, ingratitude, and lust for domination displayed by the believers toward the infidels as in their regular, sha'ria-tinged political dealings with them.
Though even I'm left speechless at the scope of its ambition. Not only must the Koran be God's perfect, final word, and Muslims constitute God's "best community", everything else from the religious past that is worth stealing must be Muslim as well. Abrahahm and Moses? Mine!, says the Muslim. The Torah and Euangelion? Both Mine! The Psalms, the Prophets, Kings? Mine, mine, mine! If world religions could be personified Islam would be a petulant, bullying, 10 year old boy.
What's nearly as infuriating, though, is that the charge of corruption is nowhere more justly applicable than to the Koran itself. If the Koran is God's perfect, uncreated word why does it:
As St. Clair-Tisdall said, Mohammed had a unique ability in always choosing anything but the canonical source for his scripture.
Posted by: emperor_diocletian at June 29, 2005 5:48 PM
It's not a bad religion... It has its uses... The Koran belongs in the toilet after its pages are used for some toilet related utility...
Posted by: jsla at June 29, 2005 6:28 PM
I still say - and will always say:
Muhammad is one lone accuser - and a murderer - who stands alone and calls the testimonies of many [even the eye witnesses to Christ] all liars.
One who wasn't there - calling many whose testimonies agree over a LONG period of time - liars?
What has more power? The many? or the one who wasn't even there and preaches bloody war with all 'unbelievers' ?
Peace or War: Choose
Life or Death: Choose [Eternal]
Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2005 6:47 PM
I am so effing sick of islam and its disgusting, lying, false testimony.
Yo, any islamo's reading this blog... yes, the Bible spoke of mo. he's the false prophet. he's ishmael and haagar. he's the serpent in the tree. he's the one who tempted Jesus in the desert. he's the one who has wreaked havoc upon all of mankind since he reared his ugly head, and mo was only an extension of Satan. he's the one that raped a 9 year old girl. he's the one who killed millions during his reign of terror and the one who died in a cave. he's the one who couldn't work any miracles. he's the one who kept making up allah and 'his' will as he went along. he's the GREAT DECEIVER. You moslimes who are so proud and haughty will be brought low.. you are being brought low as we speak.
Shame on you, shame on your deceitful ways, shame on your cultish beliefs and your shunning of those who wish to give you aid and comfort, freedom and love. Shame on your males who cannot keep their penises in check long enough to allow your women to breathe fresh air; to feel the breeze that the Good Lord gave them to breathe. To openly walk amongst the people and be proud of the beauty that only God himself could bestow upon women. Shame on you for making your women slaves, when God Himself said that women are His equal creation... things of beauty to be adored by ALL CREATION. Not just sicko muslim males with their penises for brains, who can't bear to look upon a wrist or an ankle without the urge to rape, beat or kill not just any woman, but his own sister or mother or grandmother. muslim men are the most shameful of creatures... more shameful than a monkey beating itself off in a zoo.
You are not a cult of peace... you are a cult of death, destruction and evil. Evil to the core. You and your mohammed/false prophet will be defeated in my life time. Mark my words. For I will fight you with all of my heart, all of my soul, all of my mind and with all of my might to protect my children from your venomous, hateful, deceitful, murderous cult of death, rape and destruction. I detest you and will see your end... in MY lifetime.. not my son's.
Soon.. your end is soon.
at June 29, 2005 8:51 PM
SexyKafira1
Great post! One disagreement..if muslim males had normal relations with females they might not be so angry and murderous. Kind of like a poster or 2 on this blog. You stay angry, it's therapeutic.
at June 29, 2005 10:02 PM
Another link to contemplate:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=9§ion=0&article=66109&d=29&m=6&y=2005
at June 29, 2005 10:23 PM
I think something more serious is going on in that part of the world. Read here:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=13§ion=0&article=65814&d=23&m=6&y=2005
Posted by: Skeet Street at June 29, 2005 10:32 PM
Nahid Bashatah • Al-Riyadh
According to an online newspaper, one quarter of Saudi children have been molested at least once during their lives. The paper, Al-Wifaq, said that 62 percent of the victims refused to identify the molesters while 6.16 percent said the molestation was done by relatives or individuals who had close contact with the child’s family.
Why skeeter,... this is conduct condoned by "God"'s profit.. the one and holy mohammed,, the last of all the prophets, the perfect man, who's perfect example must be followed for all time! How can you possibly condemn these daddies for this behavior?
/sarcasm tag applied because ya'll might not know that I'm being sarcastic.
Appalling indeed.
Posted by: SexyKafira1 at June 29, 2005 10:37 PM
Beth: I am so effing sick of islam and its disgusting, lying, false testimony.
I speak the same of the testimony of Mormons, Moonies, 7th Day Adventists, JWs, Christian Scientists, L-Ron Hubbard-ites (Tom Cruise's religion), et cetera. These are all false religions. Mohammed was a wacko a lá Joseph Smith and Helena Blavatsky.
I am not into healthy atheism. I'm curious tho', at the extra seven dimensions current physics suggests we have (string theory).
Posted by: Loxias at June 30, 2005 3:45 AM
Whatever happened to the ancient Korans found I think somewhere in eastern europe in a mosque during a renovation of a mineret. They were found to be different than newer versions of the koran. It has been several years since the find and the Korans were from many different centuries.
Posted by: brucefromlv at June 30, 2005 9:14 AM
Bruce-
The ancient Koranic pages were found in a mosque in Yemen and a book analyzing them was published (in German) called "Die Syro- Aramäische Lesart des Koran. Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache" by Christoph Luxenberg . Not really for the casual reader.
at June 30, 2005 10:56 AM
Emperor_d:
Isn't Luxenberg a nom de plume because the author has written works that don't go down well with the usual suspects?
Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 30, 2005 4:09 PM
Beth: I am so effing sick of islam and its disgusting, lying, false testimony.
Posted by: Loxias
That was posted by SexyKafira1 - not me
Posted by: Beth at June 30, 2005 10:34 PM
I speak the same of the testimony of Mormons, Moonies, 7th Day Adventists, JWs, Christian Scientists, L-Ron Hubbard-ites (Tom Cruise's religion), et cetera. These are all false religions. Mohammed was a wacko a lá Joseph Smith and Helena Blavatsky.
Posted by: Loxias
Like it or not Loxias - we live in a world where the over-whelming majority choose to worship in a religion. There are many of them - around 1500 registered as 'legit' with the U.N. minus the Jwitnesses. They were kicked out about 2 years ago [after fighting tooth and nail to get in] when the U.N. discovered that they taught that the U.N. is the 'Red Dragon' [I lost it on that one]
Anyway - I know this is not a popular solution - but an 'anchor' is needed to unite people against the most BRUTAL religion known to man that is the size Islam is.
Beheadings? Crucifixions? Cutting off hands and feet? Rape? {All 'justified' by the Koran
And because the over-whelming majority chiise to enter into religion [of which no one is going to change that] the only and better option is to feed them the Bible. The New Testament condemns ALL violence between humans - that is a fact.
And NO - you don't HAVE to go to 'church' that is your choice [you're better off staying out of them]
1Jo 2:27 ye need not that any man teach you {So says the God of ALL those different 'Christian' denominations out there
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.
Any Jewish religions [and there are many divisions there also] who disagree - well - how smart is that?
Their buts are first - because they're hated the most.
The only other solutions are ALL OUT WAR! OR submit to Islam.
It is the followers of Islam who are making it that way - because their Koran commands them to.
Just a few things to ponder
Posted by: Beth at June 30, 2005 10:47 PM
The Koran seems to be a bad corruption of the Christian and Jewish text (along with idiotic ramblings of Mohamed)It sounds like it's author at best maybe had a few lines of the books read to him. For example the Koran confused two entirely different women, The mother of Jesus and the sister of Moses.
Posted by: JadeDragoness at July 2, 2005 10:54 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)