The background to Ibn Hazm's concept of Tahrif


Ibn Hazm's conception of Tahrif drawn from the authority of the Qur'an. Before his views on this matter are discussed in detail some reference should be made to Peter the Venerable (c. 490-551 A.H. = 1096-1156 A.C.)

who, in the process of his project to study Islam from original sources, provided a Christian angle on the issue of Tahrif. Peter, while admitting that the persecution of the Christians by the Romans had involved the destruction of sacred books (55 )argued that the extensive establishment of Christianity ensured that

the gospels and the writings of the Apostles survived intact. If they were destroyed in one place, they were saved in another. If, he argues, the texts were not lost, there is no reason to suppose that they were falsified either. He quotes a French proverb to support his point "What two know, everybody knows. (56 )Furthermore he insists that as the Qur'an contains material that is also in the gospels, to condemn the gospels as false is tantamount to admitting that the Qur'an itself is doubtful. Peter's argument is one that fails to discriminate between the Muslim conception of the true Injil - the uncorrupted scripture to which the Qur'an refers - and the corrupted Gospel in the possession of Christians. His attitude to Tahrif is the basis of his argument, and as Kuitzeck comments "Peter was ill-informed on this matter." (57)He maintained that the Qur'an contained no references to the corruption of the Bible although there are many precise and unambiguous references on this subject which will be considered in more detail later.

Peter's argument that the extent of Christianity, which he describes as existing in Persia, Ethiopia and India safeguarded the original texts is not a strong one, "the number of Christians at the close of the 1st century is very uncertain..." (58 )

TertuIIian's claim that "all your citizens have become Christians" has been described as "obviously rhetorical exaggeration. (59 )Christianity was not introduced into Ethiopia until the fourth century.(60 )

The church had certainly existed in India since the fourth century although the claim that Thomas the Apostle evangelized India cannot be regarded as certain.(61) Peter's assertion, it should be clear,

does not answer the possibility that corruption took place at an early date in the history of Christianity.

The Qur'an is not specific concerning the date at which the Injil suffered Tahrif.

The Qur'an ic verses ignored by Peter the Venerable which refer to the corruption of Jewish and Christian

scriptures fall into two categories.

Firstly,

there are passages which discuss the corruption of the Torah and state that the Jews are responsible for this.(62) Although the culpability of the Jews could be applied equally to the Christians who have adopted the Torah as the sacred foundation of the New Testament, giving, however, a different interpretation to it, the concern of this book at this point is with the second category of verses. These refer to the Jews and Christians under the title

'People of the Book' and charge them with corruption of their scriptures.

Ibn Hazm refers to 3:71 in this context (63 )but sets the verse among others quoted from the Qur'an,

without comment. At-Tabari, however, applying himself to the same verse: { People of the Book! Why do you confound the truth with vanity, and conceal the truth and that wittingly?}

comments that by this God means the people of the Torah and Injii, and asks them why they mix truth with vanity, and hide the foretelling of Muhammad when they found it written in their Torah and Injii

He adds that the verse is to be understood as a statement from God that the People of the Book intentionally disbelieved in Muhammad and concealed what they all knew of the prophecy about him in those books (64 )

If this is added to all the other Qur'anic passages insisting that Muhammad was prophesied in the Jewish and Christian scriptures (65 )and compared with the fact pointed out by Ibn Hazm - that both peoples agreed that there is no mention of Muhammad in their books (66 )it must be concluded that the Christians and Jews corrupted those parts referring to Muhammad.

It is noticeable that verses dealing with the corruption of the Injii are scanty in comparison with those devoted to the corruption of the Torah -but it would be an error to imagine that the Qur'an makes no reference at all to the corruption of the four gospels.

In my view this is the consequence of the Jewish assertion that their Torah is that given to Moses by God,

and their insistence that it contains no corruption of any kind, as Ibn Hazm described. The Christians, however, have considered their Gospel to be in the form of four books, a view which makes the possibility of corruption so likely that it is not necessary for the Qur'an to be so emphatic - as Ibn Taymiyah commented, distortion in the Christian gospels is more obvious and clear than in the Jewish Torah. Similarly, the Christian rejection of the idea of a single genuine Gospel of Jesus is so firm that the Qur'an devotes a number of references to asserting its existence, as mentioned above. Thus the Qur'anic verses, in number and emphasis, are designed to match the strength of its opponents.

Qur'an scholars are in agreement concerning the presence of corruption in the gospels, but there are a variety of views on the precise form that the corruption takes - some consider it to be located in the text itself, others regard it as being a matter of exegesis. Ibn Hazm's primary loyalty is to the first group, although he ventures into criticism of Christian exegesis when it proves useful for his arguments,
and this may be a matter of detailed criticism of an individual exegete, or objections to the underlying Christian ethos of basing their scriptures on the Torah.

An investigation of the etymology of Tahrifi

An investigation of the etymology of Tahrif (corruption) constitutes a useful starting point for contextualizing Ibn Hazm's position on the subject of the Christian gospels. The original meaning of the word is "to lean from the pen

in a certain direction" or "to twist words to correspond to one's own desire."(67) The Andalusian interpreter

" Ibn Atiyya stated that Tahrif menus "to change or transfer something from its original character to another"

and that Ibn ' Abbas held that the Jewish (and possibly the Christian, by implication) corruption and change was to be found in exegesis, the letter of the Torah surviving intact, although a second school of scholars maintained that the letters themselves had been changed on the basis that although the Jews had been asked to safeguard the Torah, unlike the Quran it was not safeguarded by God Himself (68)

As has been mentioned, al-Bukhari's statement concerning Ibn 'Abbas and quoted by Ibn Hazm affirms, however, that the Tahrif was in the text of the Torah. Furthermore at-Tabari ascribed to Ibn "Abbas a comment on 3:78, that the Jews had added to the book of God that which God had not revealed. (69)The great commentator Mujalud stated that Jews and Christians denied Muhammad's prophethood -even though it is stated in the Torah and

the Gospel - but it is not clear whether he regards their denial as a matter of exegesis or as prompted by a corrupt text. (70 )The Caliph al-Mahdi clearly told his critic, the patriarch Timothy, that the Bible had contained many prophecies about Muhammad but the People of the Book had corrupted their texts and they had removed the prophecies (71)Al-Mahdi asked Timothy why the gospels were different from one another and were contradictory,

and like his successor, Ibn Hazm touched on the point that they were written by four different authors (72)Timothy's reply has been mentioned elsewhere in this book.(73 )

Aj-Jahiz argues that both Christian transmission and exegesis are corrupt: "We are certain that he (Jesus) came with none except pure unity and monotheism - that is supported by reason - but not the Trinity.

We know that the Christians are in error both on the side of transmission, and on the side of exegesis."(74 )

Al-Hasan ibn Ayyub (c. 377 A. H. = 987 A.C.) has been described by Monsignor Ignazio de Matteo as not denying

"the genuineness and authenticity of the gospels" but simply cr itic iz ing the Christian understanding of them. (75 ) This is a mistaken interpretation; Ibn Ayyub certainly does refer to Christian assertions of Christ's divinity and references to the Christian assertion of Jesus' Lordship, commenting "we have described them according to your understanding of them, we accepted your saying (of them)", but further on he makes it clear that such acceptance is for arguments sake. He is unambiguous in stating his belief in the material corruption of the gospels "... we are in no doubt that the People of the Book have altered some of their words".(76) Al-Biruni (d. 440 A. H. = 1048 A. C),

a contemporary of Ibn Hazm, concerned himself with the dating of Biblical events especially in the context of the Old Testament. He, too, asserted that the scriptures had been misunderstood by Christians, and that material corruption of the genuine text had taken place. (77 )

Ar-Razi, in his commentary offered various explanations of how corruption in the Torah could have taken place,

but concluded that although the Qur'anic verses might refer to textual change it was preferable to consider it as a matter of exegesis. His view - that the Torah had been transmitted through an unbroken chain of authorities (78 )- is

contrary to common Muslim belief and to the argument put forward in Al-Faisal.

Wahb ibn Munabbih stated that the Torah and Injil, as they were sent down by God, have not suffered change in the letter, but only through the Tahrif in exegesis, and in those books which Jews and Christians have written themselves but which, they claim, have come from God.

The actual books of God, however, are safeguarded against change. Commenting on Wahb, Ibn Kathir argues that if he were referring to the texts in the hands of Jews and Christians there could be no doubt that corruption

had found its way into the texts.

He strengthened his arguments by referring to the translation into Arabic which bore witness to many errors, additions and general confusions in the understanding of many, if not all, Jews and Christians. Ibn Kathir concluded that Wahb is right, however, if he is stating that the revealed books of God, the originals, have been preserved against corruption. (79 )

Ash-Shahrastani remarked that Tahrif means "changing the written word to an alternative to give it a corrupted meaning."(80)

It should be clear from the above that there is a considerable range of opinion on the issue of corruption.

Ibn Taymiyah summarizes the broad outline of this as a general consensus that corruption in interpretation can and does take place. There is no quarrel between Jews, Christians and Muslims on this matter; dispute, however, arises when the focus turns to the texts themselves.

Ibn Taymiyah sums up the Muslim view as a general acceptance that Tahrif does indeed apply to parts of the Christian gospels, although its precise extent may be debated among scholars (81) The shortage of specific Qur'anic information on this is insignificant when compared to the total view of the book in refuting the Crucifixion, Resurrection and the Ascension as depicted by Christians. Such a refutation implicitly states that considerable portions of the extant gospels are human invention, and consequently corrupt.

He regarded the Crucifixion and other events as human insertions in the gospels (82)

Ibn Taymiyah presents an extremely lucid and thorough account of alleged corruption in the Gospel,

and his arguments clarify Ibn Hazm's point of view by comparison and contrast.

Ibn Taymiyah begins by stating the facts; that there are four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The Christians agree that Mark did not see Jesus, and that the gospels were written after Jesus' death.

The same author then points out that none of the evangelists described the gospels as the words of God.

After these prefatory remarks the argument shifts into a cogent comparison between Christianity and Islam on the basis of their respective sacred books.

Initially the argument takes the form of an extended analogy between the gospels and the Hadith.

Since the evangelists neither claim to have collected Jesus' sayings in toto, nor to have transcribed the speech of God, their productions are parallel to the books of Hadith which are not infallible, as the Qur'an is.

Like the Hadith Ibn Taymiyah regards the gospels as sound in the main, and therefore worthy of observance. Nevertheless they contain what is essentially a mixture of Divine and human material. Parts of them are God's sayings, and sections of them contain the words of the prophet revealed to Him by God.

Ibn Taymiyah thus acknowledges that parts of the Gospel were revealed to Jesus, but that these are juxtaposed with Jesus' sayings and accounts of his deeds as a prophet.

Having established a basis of material from mixed sources in the gospels,

he clearly paves the way for the possibility of corruption.

He treats the next section of his argument in a pattern of contrasts between Muslim attitudes to preserving sacred texts- and their Christian counterparts.

Firstly he considers, and stresses most emphatically, the importance of memorizing the Qur'an and Hadith as a security measure for the preservation of the texts. This, for him, would ensure the survival of the sacred books

even if all known texts were destroyed.

By comparison, the People of the Book have no tradition of exactly memorizing their texts (83)and thus would be unable to reproduce them if they were destroyed.

Although Ibn Taymiyah acknowledges that some People of the Book learn parts of their texts by heart,

these people, he comments,are not trustworthy.

The breaking of the chain of prophets, as in Judaism, leads to corruption. Corruption as he defines it, can be either in the text or in its explication.

The author of Al-Jawah then presses his point by comparing the Muslim Isnad, system of ascription, with its lack in the methodology of the People of the Book.

Lacking such a system which provides a rationale for meticulous sifting and accuracy, it is not possible that Christians are able to protect their gospels.

He then concentrates his argument specifically on the Christian gospels themselves, and doubts the precision with which scattered disciples could recount events in the past. He focuses on the passion narrative,

detailing inconsistencies between the accounts. If it is possible for there to be uncertainty about this event it is logical to assume that the Gospel accounts of Jesus' sayings are also in doubt.

Ibn Taymiyah does not, however, accuse the known disciples of lying, and in this he differs from his more fiery predecessor, Ibn Hazm. He does not ascribe blame to the disciples, but regards them as prone to error through circumstances. Their errors do not, in his view, undermine Jesus' message.

Problems of corruption and disagreement among Christians are demonstrated in Christian sectarianism, most of which clusters round uncertainties as to the exact meaning of the Incarnation.

Ibn Taymiyah refers to various heresies and disputes about the union of Divine and human in the person of Jesus.

The lack of stability - which he sees in the Christian faith - is further witnessed by the fact that the bulk of their observances were invested after the time of the disciples.

Finally he moves to consider the problem of the texts themselves in linguistic terms. Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, the language in which the gospels were first written. Translation into several languages inevitably led to a process of error and corruption.(84 )

Ibn Taymiyah's perceptive scholarship would be impressive in isolation, but has been given further validity by modern writers who freely admit the difficulties arising from transmission and translation.

Ibn Taymiyah raises a very important point here about the negative effect of the translation on the text.

To elaborate on, and illustrate this point reference should be made to George Lamsa who closely examined

the history of the king James version of the Bible, says in the introduction to his own translation of the Bible:

"When the king James translation was made, western scholars had no access to the East as we have today.

In the 16th century, A.D., the Turkish empire had extended its borders as far as Vienna ...

The scriptures in Aramaic were unknown in Europe. The only resource scholars had was to Latin and to a few portions of Greek manuscripts... It is a miracle that the king James, translators were able to produce such a remarkable translation from sources available in this dark period of European history.

Even fifty years ago, the knowledge of Western scholars relative to the Eastern Scriptures in Aramaic, and the Christian Church in the East was conjectural. Moreover, these scholars knew very little of the eastern customs and manners in which the Biblical literature was nurtured. (85 )

Due to the elements mentioned in the above quotation, some real problems arose in the translation of the biblical text. Johannes Lehmann provides a clear example to show the lack of understanding that can face the translator who tries to translate from culturally different languages. He refers to John 2:1:

"On the third day there was a wedding at Canna in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there."

He then comments; "What is this third day? The third day after what? Some translators have omitted the reference to the day at all, others have tried to make it the third day after the wedding. But there is a very simple explanation. Except for the Sabbath, Jewish days do not have names.

They are numbered from the Sabbath. Thus the third day is our Tuesday."(86)

In this example the effect of the translation may seem insignificant.

But in some cases the whole meaning of the passage has been changed,

the following sharp example is quoted by Lamsa:

In the king James version, we read in numbers 25:4;

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the Sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel.'"

The Aramaic reads:

"And the Lord Said unto Moses, Take all the chiefs of the people and expose them before the Lord in the daylight that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from the Children of Israel. (87)

According to the first passage the Prophet Moses was commanded to kill people and take all their heads and hang them up.

While the second passage tells that God commanded Moses just to expose the corruption of the chief commands before people. The difference is thus dramatic.

These examples can be of course multiplied, but it would be suffice to know that the translation has badly affected the Biblical texts, and thus added another element of corruption to it.

Moffatt, for example, pointed out that the possibility of interpolations cannot be ruled out, "even where the extant text does not suggest any break" (88 ) Like B. H. Streeter,(89) he argues that the desire to harmonize diverse texts was the foundation of significant changes, and furthermore suggests that copyists sometimes played virtually

an editorial role in approaching their material.(90)

Ibn Kammuna, writing in the thirteenth century, pointed out that adaptation of the prophetic books to Christian use necessarily involved corruption. "Many of the prophetic texts were distorted by the Christians in the process of translation from Hebrew into Greek and Syriac." (91) Such distortions may have been the result "of intent or negligence". M. Dibelius gives the following remarks: "These Christians believed themselves to be more faithful to their Master when they explained His sayings by expanding them, and then followed them with understanding,

than if they had abhorred any addition and passed on the original form of His words."(92)

In the view of the above passage the Christians mixed their own expressions with the sayings of Jesus and they considered this action to be more faithful to their Master.

As an example of addition to the scriptures William Barclay quotes Mark 2:15-17: and comments on the text as follows:

"This line of thought holds that the actual saying of Jesus ends with the words: Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick'. And that then

the community added the interpretation: 'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners'; for this was the very principle on which the missionary work of the Christian Church was based.

In other words the community has, as it were, put into the mouth of Jesus a general principle which is the expansion and the interpretation of a particular saying." (93)

Furthermore the same writer gives the following remarks on Mark 3:31-35:

"This line of thought holds that Jesus' actual words, and with, 'Here are my mother and my brothers',

and that then from this the community extracted a quite general principle:

'Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother'. The community has extracted from a particular word of Jesus on a particular occasion a word for all time. (94)

R. Bultman went very far in regarding the passage about the Sabbath in Mark 2:23-27 as merely a production of the church and therefore not authentic history. In his view, it was formulated to justify through the words of Jesus

the church's use of the Sabbath. This is on the ground that Jesus was not questioned about his own behavior, but about his disciples' behavior.

The Biblical critics argue about the question of whether or not chapter 21 in John was written by the author of 1-20 or by another person.(95)

Moreover textual alteration is admitted by the analytical scholars in the New Testament, for example Robert Grant says:

"The ending of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20) is no part of what its author originally wrote:

(a) Justin alluded to it and Irenaeus quoted from it; it is included in some important uncial manuscripts, mostly 'Western',

(b) On the other hand, it is absent from the writings of Clement, Origen and Eusebius, and is omitted in Codex Vaticanus and Codes Sinaiticus, as well as in the older Latin and

Syriac versions; the Freer manuscript contains a different ending entirely,

(c) Therefore, though it was undoubtedly added at an early date, it is not authentic." (96)

The same author goes on to say:

"The story about a woman Taken in adultery' and forgiven by Jesus does not belong to the Gospel of John."

(a) It occurs in the Byzantine text of the Gospel, usually as John 7:53-8:11 but sometimes after John 7:36 or 21:24 (in a small group of manuscripts it is found after Luke 21:38).

(b) No manuscript before the end of the fourth century contains it, no Church Father, in the same period, refers to it.

(c) Therefore it is not authentic.

A more difficult problem occurs in Luke 22:19-20. All but a few manuscripts include these verses, which are close to what Paul relates about the Last Supper in I Corinthians 11.24-5 (97)

Ibn Taymiyah raised the question of the credibility of the Crucifixion, and points out that one might be led to ask for some positive guarantee for the soundness of the gospels conveyed by the disciples who, according to him,

were confused about the Crucifixion and Resurrection (98)

The above account illustrates the diversity of opinions held by Muslim scholars on the question of corruption. Matteo's gazetteer of the attitudes of Muslims to Tahrif has already been mentioned: he attempts to sum up his findings by arguing that the Qur'an implies that corruption is in the area of interpretation, and is not a question of material corruption:

"the lie is not inside, but outside of the scriptures. (99)Furthermore he imposes a historical pattern on the scholars who dealt with corruption arguing that "the early traditionalists recognize the genuineness of the Biblical text, (100)

while later writers were divided between a belief in exegetical and material corruption.

The Islamic writers mentioned above in this section should illustrate that a belief in the textual corruption of the scriptures can be traced back to early writers. Watt, like Matteo, argues that the Qur'an does not put forward any general view of textual corruption, although he admits that it alleges the concealment of scriptural passages. The accusation of Tahrif does not, he states, mean tampering with the written text. (101)Goldziher, in his study of Ibn Khaldun seems much closer to the facts, pointing out that "Tahrif in Muslim thought, since the encounter of Islam with Jews and Christians, meant the alteration of the Biblical text by later hands."(102)

It is now necessary to turn to the Christian understanding of the Gospel tradition and corruption in order to demonstrate how the Christians attempt to defend the gospels against the charge of Tahrif.

The Christian view of the Gospel Tradition

The Christian viewpoint of the authenticity of the Gospel Tradition should be considered.

There is considerable diversity among Christian scholars when considering this matter,

but without engaging in a lengthy discussion of the details of various hypotheses regarding transmission,

some significant points will be raised here.

Behind the scholarly investigation of texts in existence, and texts which are assumed to have existed,

lies the belief that the Gospel Tradition derives from eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus:

"Tradition is unanimous that the written Gospel was the substitute for the living voice."(103)

Thus an oral tradition of eyewitness accounts is seen as the background of the current written gospels.

This oral tradition itself is regarded as complex, drawing not only on eyewitness narrations,

but also on those narrations shaped and adapted for preaching purposes;

as Irenaeus indicates the object of the early preachers and consequently of early tradition, was to proclaim:

"Those good things which are ours from God. (104) The adaptation of eyewitness accounts for the purposes of evangelism must be seen in the light of the problems attending the process of translation.

Translation from the original Aramaic into Greek was itself a piecemeal business,

"No one ever sat down and translated the material as a whole."(105)

Parts of the Gospel would be translated when it was required (106)

Furthermore each fragmented piece of translation would itself be influenced by local considerations;

"subjected to certain influences through the church life or milieu where they were handed down or received their final written form."(107) Thus the character of the early oral tradition and of the beginnings of the written tradition were subject to a considerable variety of particular shaping influences. Streeter offers a thorough account of these in his study of the origins of the four gospels (108)

In the Introduction of his book The Earliest Record of Jesus, Frank W. Beare says:

"In any serious study of the gospels we have always to keep in mind that Jesus himself left nothing in writing,

and that the earliest records of his career which have come down to us were not put into writing until about forty years after his death. All our knowledge of him is drawn from the deposit of a tradition which was transmitted for several decades by word of mouth. We are therefore obliged to raise the question of the relationship between the documents as we have them and the events and sayings which they report. For it must be realized that in a generation or more of oral transmission, sayings and stories do not remain unchanged. Once they have been committed to writing, they are to some degree stabilized as it were, though even at this stage,

we have to observe that Luke and Matthew do not shrink from altering the Marcan record which they are bothusing..."(109)

It is commonly agreed among biblical scholars that the manuscripts even the oldest and most valuable ones have, like oral tradition, suffered adverse corruption and defects. They were not only unsafe in the hands of the scribes who used to ink the manuscripts over with the a tendency to alteration of meaning and contents but also those of them who annotated and interpolated manuscripts over the centuries have not been deciphered to this day.

This is clearly admitted by the editor of the Code Vaticanus, managed by Vatican City in 1965.

Moreover the irregularities in terms of omissions and additions,

are serious and rampant between Gospel and Gospel (110)

All these instances of crystal clear evidence go to strengthen the Islamic Divine stance that present Jews and Christian scriptures are not from errors and interpretation and there stood in dire need the final Divine message rectify the short comings and the effect man-made doctrines on them.

One cannot resist the temptation to express wonder at the response of Jewish and Christian feel at home with their own scholars admission of corruption their scriptures. While on the contrary they tend to take Muslim scholars to task, when put the Qur'anic views which reveal the same verdict; bearing in mind that the Muslim pursue attitude reveal religion as the belief in the previous Divine books and prophets.

An insight into the early written gospels and attitudes towards them can be found in the fact that quotations from them given by the church Fathers differ from the current texts. Justin, for example, mentions several events for which there are no exact parallels in the four texts: he states that Jesus was born in a cave, and that a fire was kindled in Jordan at His baptism."(111)

While it is possible to defend Justin to some extent on the basis that he was quoting from memory and that tradition was fresh enough for him not to have regarded the written text as of paramount importance, such a defense cannot disentangle similar variations in the case of all the Apostolic Fathers, of whom it has been said;

"None of them name the gospels or cite them with verbal exactness."(112)

It is difficult to distinguish between oral and written sources in these cases; do these quotations "come from written texts that the authors had next to them or ... the memory of fragments of the oral tradition. (113)

The whole question of accurate or inaccurate memory which is frequently raised in discussions of the Apostolic Fathers serves to contextualize Ibn Taymiyah's objection to the want of a tradition of accurate memorization in Christianity, as mentioned above. The difficulties inherent in the quotations of the early church Fathers indicate

the likelihood of their mixing their own assertions and interpretations with the tradition received from eyewitness accounts.

There is little doubt that early written, as opposed to oral accounts have long since disappeared, and this would necessarily have involved the usual scribal errors of copying. Furthermore the Christian persecutions created a historical context in which manuscripts must inevitably have been destroyed, a point frequently made by Ibn Hazm and Muslim scholars in general.

The Christian defense against Corruption

Christian apologists firstly state that there are contradictory views of the scriptures in the Qur'an.

Muhammad acknowledged, and praised them on some occasions, but attacked them on others (114)

he claimed to originate from the same source, but his teaching differed from that of the Torah and the gospels.

Ibn Hazm's Christian contemporaries raised the question of how Muslims could say that they believed in the Torah and the gospels, drawing on them to prove Muhammad's prophecy, while simultaneously saying that these books were corrupt.

Ibn Hazm, in reply, states that Muslims believe in Moses and Jesus, and the Torah and Injil, and furthermore,

true Muslims charge anyone who denies these with unbelief. However, Muslims believe that unbelievers among

the sons of Israel had changed the Torah, and that unbelievers among Christians had corrupted the Injil by addition and omission; but that God saved some to be a testimony against the corrupters, and to judge them in the light of those parts of the Gospel that are sound (115)

Ibn Hazm accepts parts of the four gospels as sound and in this context those Qur'anic verses to which his critics referred as evidence of the complete soundness of their scriptures should be mentioned with his comments.

One particularly important verse which specifically concerns itself with both Christian and Jewish sacred books is 5:66: {Had they performed the Torah and the Gospel, and what was sent down to them from their Lord, they would have eaten both what was above them, and what was beneath their feet }.

Ibn Hazm comments that the truth of this is unquestionable but he seems to place a particular understanding on

the word Aqamu _which is not fully brought out in the translation "performed". As it appears in Al-Faisal,

Ibn Hazm seems to regard this as signifying "observed in full" "set upright" - it is thus not merely an invocation to observe, but a request to set straight.

He comments "there is no way for Christians to set their gospels upright" because the parts they have omitted have been taken away or have vanished, leaving them without a sure foundation. Only by believing in Muhammad can

the Torah and Injil be set upright, and it would then be possible for Christians and Jews To believe in what God had originally revealed in their gospels, whether or not that still survives.They will then recognize as false the corruptions in their scriptures which consist of those parts not revealed by God (116)

Ibn Hazm's assessment of this verse is supported by a modern Qur'anic interpreter who argues that it neither gives Christians evidence of the soundness of their scriptures, nor proof that they have not suffered corruption - he adds that the meaning of the verse is a commandment to Jews and Christians to observe the real Torah and Injil which are implied in the Qur'an.(117)

Ibn Hazm then refers to a Qur'anic verse used by some of his critics as supposed evidence of the validity of the Christian gospels: { So let the people of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down therein. }(118) The author of Al-Faisal regards this as true. In the literal sense: in the Gospel God has, as the verse states,

sent down His commandment to believe in Muhammad and to follow His Religion.

However, Christians are unable to judge according to what was sent down in the Gospel from which they take their name "People of the Gospel", because the gospels in their possession are not that which was revealed by God.(119)

In this passage Ibn Hazm explains that the description of the "People of the Gospel" given in this Qur'anic verse derives from the original, pure Gospel, not from the four texts known as the gospels by his contemporary Christians. This understanding of the verse in question finds support from other scholars, among whom Ibn Kathir can be numbered.

Ibn Kathir regards the commandment as specifically directed towards Jews and Christians before the time of Muhammad, and referring to God's Revelation as it appears in the Torah and the Gospel.(120)

After the time of Muhammad, however, the text to which Jews and Christians must turn is the Qur'an which abrogates every earlier book.

This reading is supported by a certain Qur'anic Qira'ah (reading) "Wa Liyahkum AM al-Injil" which does not indicate the imperative form, and states:

"We gave him (Jesus) the Gospel so that the People of the Gospel might observe what God revealed in it. (121 )This refers to the genuine Gospel, and does not indicate the Gospel current during Muhammad's time.

It should be clear from the discussion above that Christians attempted to defend their texts from the charge of corruption by using the Qur'an itself as one aspect of their apology. Ibn Hazm's answer to such arguments has been indicated:

however, there was another area of reference in this debate, and this consisted of the time at which the Christian texts might have undergone corruption.

An illustration of the Christian point of view can be found in the work of 'Ammar al-Basri,

known only through two controversial books. Al-Basri disputes the possibility that the scriptures could have suffered change after the period during which they were widely circulated (122) The same question was raised by Ibn Hazm who dated the time at which the gospels were corrupted as predating the time at which they were written down, after which anyone making textual changes would have been immediately exposed - as has been discussed above.(123 )

Ar-Razi, too, addressed himself to the same problem, and although he was inclined to think that corruption was a matter of exegesis which had misrepresented the word of God, he was prepared to countenance

the possibility that a group of people had connived to distort the Gospel at an early date, and had subsequently introduced the text to an audience who had accepted it out of ignorance (124) Ibn Taymiyah, who made use of Ibn Hazm's argumentson this issue, is quite explicit in stating that corruption could not have taken place after the text of the scripture had been circulated in many languages all over the globe;(125)

it is impossible in his view, that even secular texts could be changed after having been widely circulated.

The Torah and gospels, then, must have been distorted when they were small in number and narrow in circulation. The actual texts current in his day bore marks of an early, rather than a late corruption (126)

Following the Muslim belief ar-Razi stated that the Jewish and Christian books have been corrupted as it has been mentioned in the context of our answer to Hava Lazarus.

The author of Al-Faisal considered the problem of the existence of several Qur'anic readings but it is necessary to outline the Christian position taken up against Ibn Hazm on this matter in order to indicate the character of this attack which is ultimately directed at the Qur'an itself.

The Christian apologists argued that differences in the form of the Qur'anic words discoverable in the gospels were not distortion, but alternative readings, thus implying that there was no distinction in authoritativeness between the Qur'an itself and the gospels.

Ibn Hazm's Christian critics sought flaws in the Islamic ascription or Isnad. They said that there were variant readings of the Qur'an, in particular they cited ' Abdullah ibn Mas'ud's (d. 33 A.H. = 653 A.C.) copy of the Qur'an as different from the current one.

Secondly, they argued that some of the learned scholars in Islam stated that "Uthman cut out many correct readings, and gathered Muslims around one of the seven readings through which the Qur'an was revealed.

Thirdly, Christians argued that the Rawafid alleged that differences were perpetrated by Muhammad's Companions.

The author of Al-Faisal _answers his critics as follows.

Firstly, he argues that the addition or omission of letters does not constitute variant readings of the Qur'an;

the significant factor is that the readings were passed down through an uninterrupted chain of authorities.

Thus all seven readings of the Qur'an are correct, because they are each the word as revealed to Muhammad. Limited in number to seven, omission and addition cannot alter the accuracy and exactness of the seven readings.

Ibn Hazm is at pains to defend Islam from the charge that some of Muhammad's Companions and followers read the Qur'an in an idiosyncratic way which is not followed by other Muslims who nevertheless reverence these figures, and that this constitutes a weakness in Isnad. He comments that while Muslims respect and

revere these figures, they do not regard them as beyond illusion and error, or as guides to be followed blindly. What they transmitted of Muhammad's words as witnesses who saw and heard him is acceptable,

but it is not claimed that they were infallible; when they made pronouncements on the basis of personal opinion or speculation they offer readings which derive from the narrator's own views.

The implication here is that these readings are not validated by Ijma or consensus of opinions; and elsewhere Ibn Hazm mentions that the text could not be accepted unless all of Muhammad's Companions agreed upon it (127)He complains here that Christians fail to sift their authorities in this fashion.

Moving to the specific question of Ibn Mas'ud's script being different, the author of Al-Faisal totally rejects this, arguing that it is one of the attested seven readings of the word as revealed to Muhammad.

The argument that 'Uthman suppressed correct readings for the sake of unity is also dismissed.

Ibn Hazm argues that in practical terms it would not have been possible for 'Uthman to have done this, considering the number of extant readings in his day, and the wide circulation of texts throughout the Islamic world.

Furthermore, the choice of one reading was simply to identify a touchstone copy for reference purposes if anyone attempted to make changes to the text.

On the subject of Rawafid, he unambiguously rejects their authority, since in his view they are not Muslims,

but a sect which, as has already been mentioned in the context of the Qur'an, arose 25 years after Muhammad's death, and which conspired against Islam.

He compares this sect to Jews and Christians who corrupted their texts, and he describes the Rawafid as telling untruths about 'Ali.(128)

Sweetman comments on one particular aspect of Ibn Hazm's defense, that is his point that the Companions were not free from error.

Sweetman describes this as: "a serious admission because it is by the Companions that Islam has the Qur'an."(129)

On this point Sweetman fails to grasp the essential thrust of Ibn Hazm's argument, which is that the Companions are not infallible as individuals, but their consensus of opinion is infallible.

This is made perfectly clear in the text of Al-Faisal, in a section which is not quoted by Sweetman. "

Those readings to which the Christians refer are dependent only on (Mawquf) the Companion or follower."(130)

This statement shows that Ibn Hazm's attack was quite specifically directed at the individuality of the figures;

this does not exclude the possibility of infallibility when the individual Companion played a role in consensus.

Sweetman's commentary on Ibn Hazm's attitude to the Companions makes precisely the same points made against the author by his contemporary Maliki opponents. He was accused of having represented Muhammad's Companions as inventing new aspects of the faith after the Prophet's death.

Ibn Hazm defended himself stoutly,

arguing that he had never attacked the Companions, from whom Muslims received their faith and in whose footsteps he followed. He complained that the Malikiyya blindly followed the leader of their own school of thought, while Muslims should properly recognize that their faith was transmitted by the Sahaba,

given the fulfillment of the uninterrupted chain of authorities traceable to the Prophet himself.

The Sahaba, the genuine narrators, their trustworthy followers, and the traditionalists must be seen as the agents who perpetuate Islam. (131)

The whereabouts of the original Gospel

Collecting the points made by Ibn Hazm in this context, his view can be stated as follows.

The Gospel was partly destroyed, a destruction that took place with God's permission.

The author of Al-Faisal differs from Ibn Taymiyah in that he does not argue for the existence of a sound version during Muhammad's lifetime, but traces the partial destruction of the Injil to the dispersal of the Apostles after Jesus' death.

Ibn Hazm's text implies that he refers to a particular written book. The author of Al-Faisal does not exclude

the possibility that fragments of the original might have survived, either in written form or in the memories of Jesus' followers.

Abu al-Fadl al-Maliki carried the above statement further when he used the following chapter heading

in Al-Muntakhab, Section One "On What Part of the Gospel was Protected from Corruption".

Ibn Taymiyah is in agreement with the above statement, but added the following points: Christians did not distort all the versions of the Gospel. They only did so with some of them, but not with every copy.

If he is correct he remarks that the Qur'an acknowledges the correct version, and attacks the corrupted one;

but Ibn Taymiyah is unable to present the sound Gospel.

The same author is here indirectly attempting to resolve the problem which Christians have raised, namely that in places the Qur'an calls Christians to observe their Gospel, while elsewhere it describes their Gospel as corrupted. Ibn Taymiyah, by positing the existence of an uncorrupted version of the Gospel as well as corrupted versions, suggests that the Qur'an asks Christians to observe the former and reject the latter.

Such a solution is attractive at first sight, but cannot withstand close examination.

If a sound version of the Gospel existed during the lifetime of Muhammad why is there no trace of it in early Islamic writing, and why was it not preserved by Muslims? Muhammad would have safeguarded such a heavenly Book if it had existed, since it contained the prophecy of his own coming; furthermore,

he would not have permitted the four corrupt gospels to have superseded the uncorrupted original.(132)

If Ibn Taymiyah cannot resolve the problem, a palatable explanation is offered by Ibn Hazm and several other Muslim scholars. The Injil _was indeed partly destroyed, but also partly preserved in the four current gospels. Muhammad was able to distinguish between the false and the genuine by Revelation, not by human means.

Thus it can be said that whenever the Qur'an praises the Gospel it refers to those parts of the genuine Injil incorporated into the present gospels. The Qur'an charges the People of the Book with 'intentional distortion of the scriptures' (133)and this would indicate that Christians and Jews are fully aware of which parts of their writings are genuine and which are human additions and distortions. Consequently when the Qur'an calls them to observe their scriptures it refers to the observation of the genuine parts of their scriptures,

parts which they are able to ideuiry. Muslims would say in general that the true sayings of Jesus can be distinguished from the rest of the four gospels in two ways:

firstly, as the famous contemporary Muslim

scholar, S. Abul Avla Maududi suggests, when certain formulas are used to introduce the words of Jesus: "Thus it is obvious that the first four gospels are not the Injil, the discourses and sayings of Jesus, but they contain it. We have no means of recognizing them from the works of the authors except this: whenever the authors say, "Jesus said so, or taught so and so", there the Injil begins and when they resume the narration,

there it ends."(134)

According to the same author, if such portions are compiled and compared with the Qur'an,

no serious differences between the two will be discovered; trivial differences,

can easily be overcome by unbiased thinking.(135)

The second possible way of identifying the true Injil is, as M. H. 'Abd aPAziz suggests,

a question of comparing the accounts of the evangelists. If and when they agree,

this could be said to constitute the actual sayings and teachings of Jesus. When disagreement occurs,

the text is their own writing.(136)

These two methods of approaching the gospels exclude a good deal of material, but both diverge from Ibn Hazm's view and constitute a serious problem. The first method is not pursued by the author of Al-Faisal, who discounts several passages introduced with the suggested formulae. The most obvious difficulty with the second method is that it necessitates a partial acceptance at least, of the Crucifixion which would debilitate not only Ibn Hazm's argument, but also the overall Muslim position.

Now we are in a position to say that differences between the Muslim and Christian understanding of the revealed word of God - the former locating Revelation in their sacred text, the latter in the person of Jesus -have determined the character of the Christian-Muslim debate concerning the gospels.

The Muslim scholars and Ibn Hazm in particular employed the methods used to determine the authenticity of Islamic sacred texts, Ibn Hazm describes the process of the corruption of the four gospels in the light of the history of the early church, demonstrating the possibility of weak links in the chain of transmission.

The methodology he uses to find evidence of corruption ranges from the presence of Christian sectarianism, which he ascribes to the loss of the full Injil to a nice comparison of the textual details of the four gospels.

Our arguments are firmly based on detailed study of the Christian texts both evangelical and ecclesiastical,

the Christian answer to the Muslim view often taking the form of counter-attack, as has been demonstrated through out.

Endnotes

55-James Kritzeck, Peter the Venerable and Islam, (Princeton, New-Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1964),

p. 181.

56-As Kritzeck points out this proverb has survived in many languages, Ibid. p. 182, the footnote.

57- Ibid,. p. 177.

58-See Alfred Plummer, "Church" (D.A.C.), vol. 1, p. 206.

59-Alexander Sehmermann, The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, trans, by Lydia Kesich W. (New York, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1977), p. 28.

60-Jean Danielou and Henri Marrou, The Christian Centuries, the first six hundred years, trans, by Vincent Cronin, (London, Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd., 1964). vol., 1, pp. 286 f; Cross and

Livingstone. "Ethiopian" (O.D.C.C.), p. 474 and Donald Attwater, The Penguin Dictionary of Saints, (Great Britain, Hazel Watson and Viney Ltd., 1975). pp. 142 ff.

61- Donald Attwater, op. cit., pp. 324 ff.

62-2:41-42, 75; 4:46; 5:13, 41.

63-See also 3:78 f.

64-Janii" AI-Bayan "An Ta'wil Ay Al-Qur'an, vol. 3. pp. 220 f; see also vol. 4, p. 132.

65-See e.g. 2:146 and the verses mentioned in the context of prophecies regarding Muhammad.

66-See "Timothy", pp. 33 ff.

67-Ar-Raghib Al-Isfahani, Al-Mufradat Fi Gharib Al-Qur'an, cd., by M. Ahmad Khalaf Allah, (Cairo, al-Anjilo al-Misriyya, 1965), vol. 1, pp. 122f

68-Ibn vAtiya, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 326; see also Ibn Kathir, Mukhtasar Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. I, pp. 80, 294 and 399; Muhammad Ali as-Sabuni, Safwat At-Tafasir, (Beirut, Dar al-Qur'an al-Karim, 1981), vol. 1, p. 212 and M. Ignazio de Matteo, op. cit., pp. 66 ff.

69 JamV Al-Bayan \4/z Ta'wil Ay Al-Qur'an, vol. 6, p. 536; also vol. 5, pp. 299 f and 1. H. El-Hardallo, op. cit.,

pp. 17 f.

70-Tafsir, p. 93 and at-Tabari, JamV, vol. 3, p. 143.

71-Timothy, pp. 33 ff.

72-Ibid., pp. 41 f.

73-See p. 86 and Ibid., pp. 33 ff.

74-Abu vUthman Amru Ibn Bakr aj-Jahiz, Thalath Rasa'il, ed. by J. Finkel (Cairo, al-Salafiyya Press, 1926), p. 143.

75-M. Ignazio de Matteo, op. cit., p. 76.

76-Ibn Tayiniyah, Aj-Jawab As-Sahih, vol. 2, p. 342.

77- Al-Athar Al-Baqiyah, pp. 13 IT and p. 32 f.

78-Fakhr ad-Din Abu v Abdullah ar-Razi, Mafatih Al-Ghayb (Cairo, al-Bahiyya ai-Misriyya, n.d.), vol. 2, pp. 183; see also vol. 1, p. 135, vol. 8, pp. 98 ff and 114, vol. 10, pp. 117 f, vol. 11, p. 187 and pp. 232 f and J. Wansbrough, op. cit., pp. 189 f. It is however to be noted that such an idea has appeared in the recent time in the work of Sayyid Ahmad Khan, who was the first Muslim to write a Bible commentary which argued that exposition has been at fault rather than any tampering with the text. Another writer says that in the Qur'an Tahrif "distortion" means either false interpretation of the passages bearing upon Muhammad or non-enforcement of the explicit laws of the Pentateuch; as for the text of the Bible it had not been altered., no rival text is assumed. The Reforms and Religious Ideas of Sir Sayyid Ahamd Khan p. 78; M. A. Ananikian, The Muslim World, XIV, pp. 61 ff; see Geoffrey Parrinder, op. cit., p. 147.

79-Al-Muavmmir, op. cit., pp. 77 f; see also Ibn Qutayba, Tafsir Gharib Al-Qru'an, p. 56.

80-Ash-Shahrastani, op. cit, vol. 3, p. 11; Mujahid, op. cit, pp. 140; see also Ibn Taymiyah, Iqtida' As-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat Ashab Aj-Jahim, ed. by Muhammad "Ali as-Sabuni (Saudi Arabia, Matabi al-Majd, 1390 A. H.), p. 8, and vAbd as-Salam Harun, op. cit., pp. 262 and 360.

81-Aj-Jawab As-Sahih, vol. 2, p. 5, and vol. 1, pp. 341 ff; see also Ibn Taymiyah, Al-Furqan Bayna Al-Haqq Wa Al-Batil, ed. by vId Muhammad Abu al-Wafa, (Cairo, Maktabat al-Imam, n. d.), p. 74.

82-See Ibid.

83-Aj-Jawab As-Sahih, vol. 2, pp. 13 f and al-Ghazali, Ar-Radd Aj-Jamil, p. 242.

84-Aj-Jawab As-Sahih, vol. 2, pp. 11-17; see also Chrysostom, part 1, p. 4.

85-The Holy Bible, from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, the introduction. Also Lisa Spray, Jesus Myths and Message, Universal Unity, 1992) pp.12ff.

86-Ibid.

87-Ibid.

88-James Moffatt, An introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, (Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1993), pp. 37 f; see also Vincent Taylor, The Text of the New Testament, a short introduction, (London, Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1961), p. 51.

89-B. H. Streeter, op. cit., p. 30.

90-James Moffatt, op. cit., p. 38.

91-See p. 18

92-A fresh approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, (London and New York, 1936), p. 34; see also William Barclay, The Gospels and Acts, (London, S.C.M. Press, 1976), vol. 1, p. 32; and C. H. Dodd, About the Gospels, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1952), pp. 14 f.

93-The Gospels and Acts, vol. 1, p. 32.

94-Ibid.

95-John Marsh, The Gospel of St. John, (London, Cox and Wyman Ltd., 1976), pp. 653 f.

96-Robert Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament, (London, William Collins Sons and Co. Ltd., 1974), p. 46; see also Arthur S. Peake, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, (London, Duckworth and Co., 1919), p. 102.

97-A Historical Introduction to the New Testament, p. 46; see also C. K. Barrette, op. cit., pp. 490 ff.

98-Al-Furqan, pp. 76 f.

99-"Tahrif, The Muslim World, vol. XIV, p. 70.

100-Ibid..p. 84.

101- M. Watt, The Early Development of the Muslim Attitude to the Bible, (UK, Glasgow University Oriental Society, 1955-6), vol. 16, p. 53;

see also M. Watt, What is Islam, (London and Harlow, Longmans Green and Co. Ltd. Librairie du Liban, 1968),

pp. 171 and 201 f.

102-Goldziher Memorial, Jerusalem, 1958, vol. 2, pp. 147 ff.

103-W. Barclay, op. cit., vol. I, p. 28.

104-Against Heresies (3.1.1.) quoted by W. Barclay, see Ibid, vol. 1, pp. 28 f.

105-Ibid., vol. l,p. 29.

106-H. Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition Essays, (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1970), pp. 4 f.

107-Ibid, p. 5; see also Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Qur'an and Science, trans, from the French by Alastair D. Pannell and the author, (USA, American Trust Publication, n.d.), pp. 54 ff.

108-Streeter, op. cit., pp. 12-15.

109-(Abingdon Press, 1962) pp. 16, 18.

110-Sir Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, (Harper and Brothers, 1958) pp. 48 f.

111-See W. H. Bennett and W. F. Adeney, A Biblical Introduction (London, Methuen and Co., 1904), p. 283.

112-Ibid.

113-Ecumenical Translation of the Bible, N.T. Paris, 1972. Introduction, quoted by M. Bucaille, op. cit., p. 54.

114-See e.g. I. M. Matteo, op. cit., p. 71.

115-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol .2, pp. 12 f; see also Sweetman, op. cit., part 2, vol. 1, pp. 122 f.

116-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2, p. 10.

117-Rashid al-Khatib al-Mawsili, Awla Ma Qila Fi Ayat At-Tanzil, (al-Mawsil, Dar al-Kutub HI Tibava wa al-Nashir, 1974), vol. 3, p. 49.

118-5:47.

119-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2, p. 11, see also Ibn Taymiyah, Al-Furqan, pp. 72 f.

120-Mukhtasar Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. I, p. 523; see also ash-Shawkani, Fath al-Qadir, (Cairo, al-Halabi, 1349 A. H.), vol. 2, p. 47 and ar-Razi, op. c/f., vol. 12, pp. 10 f.

121-Ibn Taymiyah, Aj-Jawab As-Sahih, vol. 1, pp. 369 ff; and Ibn Kathir, Mukhtasar Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. I, p. 523.

122-Kitab Al-Burhan Wa Kitab Al-Masa'il Wa Al-Ajwibah, ed. by Mishal al-Hayik, (Beirut, Dar al-Mashriq, 1977), pp. 41 and 64.

123-See pp. 90 ff, 210 and 348 f.

124-Mafatih Al-Ghayb, vol. 8, p. 114.

125-Aj-Jawab As-Sahih, vol. 2, pp. 26 ff; see also Sweetman, op. cit., part 2, vol. 1, pp. 123 f and Ibn Taymiyah, Al-Furqan, pp. 72 f.

126-Ibn Taymiyah, Aj-Jawab As-Sahih, vol. 2, p. 26 and vAli al-Bahrani, Kitab Lisan as-Sidq Jawaban Li Kitab Mizan Al-Haqq Fi Ar-Radd sAlaAn-Nasara, (Cairo, al-Mawsuat Press, 1319 A. H.), pp. 74 ff.

127-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, Muhammad * Abdullah ibn Qutayba, Ta'wil Mushkil Al-Qur'an, vol. 1, p. 30.

128-Islam and Christian Theology , part 2, vol. 1, p. 258.

129-That is to say, traceable only to the Sahabi, (Companion) not to the Prophet. See Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2, p. 79; as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, vol. 1, p. 52; see also al-Hakim, Ma"rifat ^Ulum Al-Hadith, (Cairo, Matba at Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, 1937), p. 20.

130-(R. 2), pp. 89 ff.

131-P. 14.

132-Al-Furqan, p. 73.

133-See e.g. At-Tabrani, Jami', vol. 3, pp. 220 f.

134-S. Abul Avla al-Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur'aru (Surah Al vImran and an-Nisa') (London, Pakistan, Ripon Printing Press, 1976), vol. 2, pp. 14 f.

135-Ibid.

136-Da^wat Al-Haqq Wa Al-Haqiqa Bayna Al-Masihiyya Wa Al-Islam, pp. 374 f.

Corruption of the Torah & the Gospels

The question of corruption


The question of corruption of biblical texts is a major bone of contention among the three communities, Jews, Christians and Muslims. A great deal has been written about it throughout the centuries; even before Islam, the texts have been attacked because of inconsistencies, errors and contradictions in them. There has always been heated discussion about this topic. The People of the books always ask how God's message can be corrupt? Can God's word fail? When did the corruption take place? Who is responsible for it? We shall address this question in this chapter, but first there is something that I should like to point out. Different arguments on the subject of corruption have helped the development of the sciences of textual criticism, the study of comparative religion, interfaith studies, oriental studies and so on. This in itself has given rise to specialist departments in the universities, where scholars defend their own position and try to shake their opponents' position. As I have mentioned earlier, modern biblical criticism gives support to the Muslim claim of corruption. Jews and Christians need to reconsider their position in the light of the Muslim arguments. Why, for example, if the Torah was corrupt, did Jesus not mention its shortcomings? As a prophet he could not use a false text and quote from it. There is an ingenious objection; one could say that the prophet cannot deal with everything. Jesus came for a special purpose and with a special message.


John the Baptist, for example, came to warn people and to command them to repent, in preparation for the coming of the Kingdom of God. That was his sole function. Lot came only to attack the homosexuality practiced by his people, and nothing else. Jesus himself made it clear that the Paraclete, another being like himself, would come after him and tell them what he himself could not. This means that Jesus did not say everything. This supports our viewpoint that each prophet comes with a.specific message and keeps within its limits.

So we cannot take as evidence Jesus' silence about corruption of Jewish books that these books are sound.


Readers will see that almost all modern biblical critics give credence to the Muslims' claim that the Bible has been corrupted. We are speaking from a position of belief, not as enemies wishing to destroy and reject.


Muslims believe in Jesus, and believe equally in his heavenly book and Divine message which brought great benefit to mankind.


Ibn Hazm introduces his argument concerning textual corruption by saying that both Jews and Christians have distorted the Torah and the gospels by Tabdil and Tahrif, changing and twisting the words.(1) He produces many examples to prove his point as will be seen later. In a more general attack on the relationship between the Jewish Bible, the Septuagint (or LXX, the first Greek version of the Old Testament made at Alexandria in the third century B.C.) and the Samaritan Pentateuch, which he finds to contradict one another, he points out that the Christian and Jewish Torah are different. On the basis of the different ages of the Patriarchs he concludes that the chronology of the Septuagint adds 1,300 years to the age of the world.(2) Thus it can be deduced either that Ezra copied the Hebrew correctly and the Septuagint is wrong; or that Ezra miscopied the Hebrew. "Whichever alternative is accepted, both parties believe in what is untrue."(3) Ibn Hazm's criticisms that indicate the differences between the texts are


supported by other scholars"(4)


* He also refers to variations between the Septuagint and the Torah and the Pentateuch of the Samaritans (5)


In the context of transmission Ibn Hazm begins by discrediting Christian Isncul ox ascription, and casting doubt on the authority of the Christian narrators. He applies Islamic methodology to the Christian tradition.


The gospels were not transmitted by Tawatur, unbroken succession. They had come down to Christians through three agents only: Paul, Mark and Luke, and these three had taken their material from only five sources; Peter, Matthew, John, James and Jude.(6) Paul says that he was with Peter only for fifteen days(7) when they first met, and their next meeting only occupied a brief time. The third time they met they were crucified. The five figures from whom the three agents draw their material were subjected to persecution and execution to such an extent that they were effectively scattered after Jesus' arrest; and Christians remained scattered until the time of Constantine (d. 337 A.C.), when they began to show themselves openly and to lead a more stable life. It could be argued that since Ibn Hazm recognizes the trials undergone by the Apostles he has no grounds for finding them personally culpable of corrupting the Injil. Their guilt, however, lies in their failure to recognize or admit the fact of corruption, claiming that everything they wrote was inspired by God.


Ibn Hazm's view of the position of Christians after Jesus' death is clearly determined by his general attitude to the authenticity and authority of The Acts of the Apostles. This calls for some comment. Acts relate the status and pattern of early Christian worship, and provide evidence that Christians were gathering in groups and practicing their faith in the public eye at an early date (Acts 2:5-42).


It is clear that they were free to go to the synagogue and evangelize


(Acts 6:7) and that they attracted converts from among the rabbis.


Persecutions which scattered them throughout Judea and Samara (8: Iff) were succeeded by a period of stability (9:31) and controversial issues relating to Christian practices were discussed and resolved (15:6-21).


In the light of the information relating to the early Christians in Acts, which suggest that they had the opportunity to practice their faith publicly and in private, collectively and individually - it is striking that Ibn Hazm presents

a very different picture of Christian activity at this date. Was he ignorant of the evidence in Acts, or did he intentionally ignore it to suit his purpose in discounting Isnad?


The first possibility cannot be maintained since the author of Al~Faisal was clearly familiar with the text. .(8)


He provided a good description of it, its possible authorship, size, etc.(9) He himself quoted from it,(10) and compared the miracles related in it with those of other religious sects, considering them to be false.(11)


As for the second possibility, Ibn Hazm's discounting of the evidence in Acts is less a matter of deliberate, expedient omission than the consequence of Acts failing to fulfill the requirements of an authoritative text. In common with other Muslims, he would have found the information given in Acts unacceptable because it had not been transmitted by the masses to the masses, and was not traceable to eye witnesses. The rejection of information carried in Acts is then, a consequence of its being based on the work of a single author.(12)


Given the circumstances of the early Christians as described by the author of Al-Faisal Jesus' followers were in no position to keep and protect the Injil given to them intact by Jesus. According to Ibn Hazm God protected those parts of the Injil that he wished to stand as a testimony against corruption, and as proof of the truthfulness of Islam.


This falls within Ibn Hazm's general outlook which states that the existence of negation or falsehood necessitates the existence of truth.(13) The differences among the people "of the religions" do not prove that there is no truth at all in their utterances, or that their true utterances cannot be distinguished from those which are false. He says that Jews and Christians necessarily have both truth and falsehood in their scriptures. .(14) This leads directly to the question of how it is possible to mine out the truth in the Christian dogma and scriptures.


Ibn Hazm argues that this task must be undertaken on the basis of reasoning and Revelation;(15)

for instance he rejects the Christian belief in Christ's divinity on the basis that it is irrational, and furthermore this leads him to reject those texts on which Christians claim to base such a belief. The argument of a reasonable foundation is supported by the argument based on Revelation in that the Qur'an, as God's Revelation, sanctions the objection to Christ's divinity. Ibn Hazm does not reproach Jews or Christians for the contradictions and mistakes per se in their scriptures but for their ascription of them to God. His objections are directed towards the failure of Jews and Christians to investigate properly the process of transmission or to admit the possibility that mistakes had crept into their texts. Muslims deny that God could be responsible for lies, or the acceptance of transmitters as infallible people. It is necessary to make a minute and systematic examination of those responsible for transmission.


Ibn Hazm makes a plea for Christians to sift the material in their possession rather than simply accepting it as it is, and expresses the wish that they might countenance the possibility that transmitters might have committed errors. This having been done it would be possible to correct or reject mistakes on the Muslim scheme. Once again this leads the discussion to the question of how Jesus' true speech can best be distinguished from words that have falsely


been put into his mouth.


Ibn Hazm did not attempt to identify the genuine Gospel in toto - an undertaking which could not be expected from a literalist conscious that neither the Qur'an nor tradition had set a precedent for such a task. Nevertheless, his work does indicate some passages which he clearly regards as part of the real Injil as compared with others which he considers to be irrefutably corrupted. The criterion on which his distinctions are made is the Quran itself - he accepts what is consistent with the Qur'an and rejects what is incompatible with it,

this latter understood as passages specifically denied in the Qur'an or implicitly contradictory.


Ibn Hazm's categorization of passages relating to the identity of the true Injil can be set forward in three groups.

Firstly,


he fully accepts certain passages, for example, Luke 4:24, describing this as part of what God protected and kept as a testimony against Christians.(16) Likewise he accepts those verses which argue for Jesus' humanity and prophethood and the references to the Paraclete which he understands to constitute a prophecy about Muhammad. In this context it is noteworthy that Ibn Hazm's reference to the Paraclete does not correspond to any of the four references in John (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:17). The text of Al-Faisal states that the prophecies concerning Muhammad in the Torah "are accompanied by those in the Injil concerning Jesus' prayer to God; "send down the Paraclete to teach the people that the son of man is human",(17) followed by the comment: "This is perfectly clear for whosoever is ready to understand; when Jesus knew that his followers would exaggerate his status, insisting that he was God, or the son of God, he prayed that He might send down (the Paraclete) who would clarify the fact that he was neither a deity nor the son of the deity, but a man born of woman"..(18)


Ibn Hazm goes on to ask whether any prophet succeeding Jesus clarified t his point, other than Muhammad.


The above passage concerning Jesus' prayer to God in Al-Faisal represents an unusual error from such an exact critic, and the recent discovery and publication of Ibn Hazm's Al-Usul Wa Al-FunC suggests that it is an editorial error. This book gives the complete picture of the identification between the Paraclete and the prophet made by Ibn Hazm. The other passages in John concerning the same issue are discussed but the quotations differ from those in the current version, and correspond closely to Ibn Rabban's version.(19)


Ibn Hazm comments on the passages that

"despite the differences between them they are close (in meaning). They differ because the Apostles who took them from Jesus were many". The explanation of the passages in Al-Usul is worth quoting at length: "Who is this, the spirit of truth, who does not speak on his own but through what is revealed to him? and who is this who came after Jesus and gave his witness to what Jesus brought (from heaven) ... and who declared the truth, and foretold the unseen things such as the coming of the anti-Christ or the one-eyed liar and those matters concerning the Day of Judgment, the coming, the Hell-fire and Paradise which are not mentioned in the Torah, the Gospel and the Psalter - except our Prophet Muhammad."(20)


It is very interesting that our author refers to Matthew 11:14 "And if you are willing to accept it, this is Elijah, who is to come", and follows this with the comment; "This name (Elijah) can be understood in a number of ways. Firstly, it is possible that he (Jesus) said 'Ahmad' is to come, but they changed the name, substituting Elijah instead. Secondly, Jesus may have said 'iluhim' or 'il' was to come, meaning 'God is to come'. The coming of God is the sending of Revelation, and no sacred book has come after Jesus except the Qur'an. Thirdly, it is possible that Jesus intended something - not necessarily a person - and called that something Elijah."(21)


The above quotation reveals Ibn Hazm's firm belief in the prophecy of Muhammad appearing in the Gospel, although he does not specifically refer here to the Qur'an, 61:6. In this passage the Qur'an employs the word "Ahmad" rather than "Muhammad" to name the Prophet.


Leaving aside the problem of the quotation, it is important that Ibn Hazm should have been interested in identifying the Paraclete with a Prophet who followed Jesus, and who must have been Muhammad on the basis of the (mistaken) quotation in Al-FaisaL Unlike some earlier and later Muslims,


Ibn Hazm does not develop this argument further -there is a broad range of arguments surrounding the identity of the Paraclete in both Muslim and non-Muslim scholarship.

Secondly,

Ibn Hazm recognizes that some verses in the Gospel accounts may be true - he does not commit himself to saying that they are remnants of the true Injil, but he does not exclude the possibility that they could be. An example of this can be found in his comment on Matthew 16:19-24. He begins with an outright denial that Jesus offered the keys of heaven to Peter: "By God I swear that Jesus never said such a thing",.(22) such an authorization being, in his view, destructive to the omnipotence of God, but he recognizes the possibility that Jesus' rebuke to Peter which follows in the text may be correct: "It is not impossible that he uttered the last statement."(23)


Thirdly,


as indicated above, the author of Al-Faisal absolutely denies certain verses which purport to be the utterances of Jesus; introducing his comments with a series of phrases such as: "By God, Jesus never said so", "This could not have come from God, nor a prophet, nor an infallible source, nor an honest scholar, from among the people", "By God, nobody but a liar could have said this, it could not have come from God."(24)


These three categories represent the general outline within which Ibn Hazm suggests to his reader the actual utterances of Jesus.

The question of how God safeguarded those verses welcomed as genuine by the author of Al-Faisal is not one that its author considers as relevant. The fact that God chose to protect parts of the Gospel only is a matter of God's will, which is beyond question; however parallels are drawn between the destruction of certain parts of the true Gospel, the loss of some ancient sacred books and the murder of some of the prophets, some of whom were martyred for the greater glory of God. Moreover, God preserved the essential part of the revealed Gospel to stand as a witness against those people who failed to keep the Gospel intact.


Nevertheless the reason behind God's will concerning the survival of the Gospel, rather than the consequences of His will, lies beyond the understanding of men, it is "as God wishes" and to query those would be fruitless.


The author of Al-Faisal seems to reject the idea that the correct passages in the extant gospels have been either transmitted by an unbroken chain of authorities - a view which is supported by all Muslim scholars with the exception of an insignificant minority to which Ibn Hazm refers in Al-Faisal and which he rejects as ignorant of the Qur'an and Tradition -or that they are revealed or inspired (25) as has been discussed earlier in this thesis. In this context the Qur'anic verse which states that the disciples of Jesus had been inspired by God to believe in Him and His messenger, Jesus(26) should be noted - it does not, however, constitute a generalization which can be taken to embrace the term inspiration as understood by Christians. Moreover, in the Qur'an God endowed Jesus with the Holy Spirit only as all His prophets and messengers were endowed. In common with all Muslims Ibn Hazm denied


the disciples and Apostles as prophets or capable of performing miracles as discussed above.


Thus the author under review ascribed the operation of safeguarding some of the revealed Gospel to God Himself but rejected the possibility that this had been managed by an unbroken chain of authorities; he does not feel impelled to go into the question of how God could have preserved, a part at least, o{ the true Gospel, in depth.


On the subject of such an important issue the author of this thesis has accounted it worthwhile to suggest an answer which would be faithful to Ibn Hazm's own outlook.


It has already been mentioned that Ibn Hazm does not exclude the possibility of a true written Gospel - this is clear from his phrases:

"The Gospel has been lost except for a few portions", and "God has taken it away". Has He taken some of the previous Revelation away? It is possible that God removed those parts of the true Gospel at the time when Christians began to add to or omit from the scriptures. If this is the case, the Gospel of Jesus Christ as a single, complete volume was removed, surviving only in partial form, either in the memory of the disciples, or as an actual text which was introduced into the gospels by the evangelists but mixed with human additions which they regarded as divinely inspired. It seems likely that Ibn Hazm considers that those parts of the true Gospel removed by God


can be inferred from the Qur'an. However, a significant problem arises from this: if the idea of an unbroken chain of authorities is excluded by Ibn Hazm, how can he allow himself to accept any parts of a Gospel that has been transmitted by authors outside the accepted system of Isnadl If some parts are corrupted by failing to fulfill the demands of Isnad, why not all?


Interestingly enough Ibn Hazm addressed himself to precisely this area of difficulty in his objections to a small


Muslim group who acknowledged Isnad with reference to the Jewish and Christian scriptures. He would appear to have had no direct contact with this group, nor to have seen any of their writings if such existed, stating simply that "we have been told (about them)" and from this they would seem to have exerted insignificant contemporary influence.


The reference to them in Al-Faisal, being of such importance to Ibn Hazm's own attitude to the four gospels,


is worth quoting at length: "We have been told of a number of Muslims who, out of ignorance, deny that the Torah and Injil have been corrupted at the hands of Jews and Christians. The reason which caused them (this group of Muslims) to maintain this is their lack of knowledge of the Qur'an and Sunnah. .(27)

He then refers to the Qur'anic passage which mentions the corruption, which will be discussed in detail later in this book, and continues: "We say to those Muslims who hold that their (Jewish and Christian) transmission has come through an unbroken chain of authorities and is necessarily true knowledge which can be taken as evidence,


that no doubt Jews and Christians would agree that what they received and reported of Moses and Jesus contains no reference to Muhammad and no prophecies of his prophethood. If they (the group of Muslims) acknowledge such reports in part, they must also acknowledge them in full, whether they like it or not.


If they think them (Jews and Christians) liars in some of their reports but not in others they are guilty of obstinate contradiction. It is impossible that the tradition which comes through a single channel can be partly true and partly false ... we do not know how a Muslim could make it lawful to deny the corruption of their Torah and Injil while he hears the speech of God telling him that Muhammad was foretold in both sacred books, and nothing like this exists


in the books in the hands of Jews and Christians which they claim to be the Torah and Injil. It is necessary that those ignorant Muslims should either believe the word of their God -that Jews and Christians have changed the Torah and Injil, or that they should become fools and unbelievers in God's word. If this is so, the evidence of corruption we have shown in those books must be raised against all of them together ... what we have discovered as evidence of the corruption and lies in the four gospels are clear to the extent that if there was no scriptural evidence of the extent to which Jews and Christians have corrupted their texts we could be as sure of their distortion as we would be of the evidence of our senses."(28)


Research has failed to identify the particular group of Muslims to which Ibn Hazm refers or to discover the theoretical basis of their thought, and such a task is beyond the scope of this book.

The relevance of Ibn Hazm's objections to the Muslim group he mentions is, of course, his argument that tradition transmitted through a single channel cannot be true in part only. If this is applied to his own distinction between true and false in the four gospels and the classification noted above it would appear to undermine his own argument. However, it should be emphasized that in this instance he does not base his distinctions on the ground of Isnad,


but on Revelation, that is, the Qur'an. As a strict believer in the Qur'an he accepts those verses which, as the word of God, refer to the Gospel of Jesus as having been revealed to him, and as containing guidance.


Likewise he accepts those verses which describe the corruption of this Gospel which, as he understands it, consists of omission or addition. Concerning the safeguarding of some Divine portions of that Gospel, the author of Al-Faisal regarded God himself as the agent of protection. In this the argument relating to Isnad is subsumed in the higher argument of direct Divine intervention.


Thus Ibn Hazm constructs his theory of corruption on the one hand, but the Divine energy of safeguarding on the other, on a Qur'anic basis. During his entire examination of the four gospels in which his reasoning and critical powers discover certain contradictions and mistakes he never loses sight of the central reference point of the Quran and the necessity of proving what the Qur'an maintains.


In conclusion to his discussion of the gospels Ibn Hazm states that whatever was revealed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet is acceptable; whatever is either discredited by the Qur'an and Sunnah, or demonstrates its own falsity, is to be rejected. Any portion that is neither sanctioned nor discredited could be true or false and Muslims should neither believe nor disbelieve it. The author of Al-Faisal supports his conclusions by reference to the Qur'an and the Sunnah as shall be shown later,

and finally allies himself with the comment of Ibn ' Abbas as related by al-Bukhari: "How can you ask the People of the Book about anything when your own book, which was revealed to the Prophet by God is fresh (recently revealed). You can read it, crystal-clear, unmixed, and it tells you that the People of the Book have changed the Book of God, the Almighty, and have altered it. They wrote it with their own hands and then sold it cheap saying that it came from God."(29)


Ibn Hazm describes this as: "the soundest Isnad or ascription to Ibn v Abbas, which is exactly our view. There is no difference between the companions on this matter." .(30)


His reference to "the soundest Isnad" is an implicit rejection of a tradition that Ibn "Abbas said that the Tahrif occurred in exegesis rather than the letter of the Torah, which had not suffered change. Ibn Hazm clearly discounts this tradition and those who follow it, as mentioned before.(31) I agree with Al-Faisal's distinction between


traditions here - Ibn 'Abbas' statement that exegesis rather than text was false was most probably made on


a particular occasion with reference to a particular scriptural passage and cannot be taken as a general statement. The tradition related by al-Bukhari correctly records Ibn 'Abbas' understanding of corruption as being in the text itself. A fuller examination of the meaning of corruption will be provided later in this book.


Ibn Hazm's argument that the four gospels contain small portions of the actual revealed Gospel should be set against other opinions concerning the extent of the survival of the actual Gospel. Ibn Taymiyah indicates the range of views on this matter. "Some Muslims, and some People of the Book, hold that the actual words of the scriptures have been changed. Of those people some consider the corrupted portions to be large in number, and regard them as more numerous than the sound. This is especially so in the case of the gospels in which the areas of weakness


are more obvious than the Torah. A few would go so far as to state that the scriptures are altogether empty of sacredness, while others would regard those passages which have suffered textual change as minor,


a more obvious viewpoint. Most, however, maintain that the four gospels contain but a few of God's words." (32)


Ibn Hazm clearly belongs with this latter group, as has been indicated above. Ibn Taymiyah defined his own position by concluding that it was best to consider the Torah and Injil in the hands of the People of the Book as containing some of God's commandments. His reference to the People of the Book in the quotation above is interesting, whether he was in fact referring to orthodox Christians, declared Christian heretics, or People of the Book who had converted to Islam is not clear.


Quite unambiguous, however,is the character of the corruption to which the author refers in his description of the range of attitudes to the survival of the actual Gospel:- it is a matter of textual rather than exegetical falseness.


Having presented the views of Ibn Hazm on the transmission of the Christian tradition in the context of Muslim thinking it is important to sketch out the Christian interpretation of the same matter as a point of comparison.


It is not possible, of course, to provide a full account but an indication of the areas of coincidence and difference can at least be suggested. Irenaeus points to the problems of defining authoritative tradition in his comment on contemporary heretics: "When they are refuted out of the scriptures they betake them to accusing the scriptures themselves as if there were something amiss with them and they carried no authority, because the scriptures, they say, contain diverse utterances, and because the truth cannot be found in them by those that know not the tradition.

For that, they say, has been handed down not by means of writings but by means of the living voice..." (33)


Clearly at this date the precise location of the authority of tradition, whether it was discoverable in the scriptures themselves, or existed in some area of oral tradition external to the texts, was a matter of dispute.


Irenaeus complains that the heretics to whom he refers appeal to their individual understanding as authorizing tradition, and counters this with an appeal to "that tradition which is derived from the Apostles,


and which is safeguarded in the churches through the successions of presbyters. " (34)He emphasizes the known succession of bishops transmitted through the church and traceable back to the Apostles who "have lodged all that there is of truth with her, (the church) as with a rich bank, holding back nothing" (35) Unorthodoxy is to be determined


by its failure to recognize the primitive succession" (36)as the test of doctrine: "All doctrine which accords with those apostolic churches, the sources and originals of the Faith, must be reckoned as the truth, since it preserves without doubt what the churches received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God... " (37)


Irenaeus' conception of unbroken tradition has some parallels to the Islamic notion of Isnad but, as can be seen in the following quotation, is far less vigorous in its requirements: "An unbroken succession from the beginning so that the first bishop (of any church) had as his precursor and the source of his authority one of the Apostles or one of the Apostolic men who, though not an Apostle, continued with the Apostles." (38)


Irenaeus, while noting that the objections of heretics could focus on what they regarded as "diverse utterances"


in the scriptures, raising precisely that problem to which Muslims have applied themselves to study, answers

those,heretics in terms which are far more general and which do not really clarify or solve this difficulty.


His description of the transmission of tradition does not specify either exactly what constitutes tradition - whether it is the utterances of Jesus, forms of worship etc., or a firmly-drawn rationale for transmission in the shape of describing, for example, the times and places of transmission or an exact definition of authority.


The phrase "apostolic men" is, for instance, in sharp contrast to the Islamic clarity on the number and identity of Muhammad's Companions.


In more recent times Stott has argued that there is a sharp distinction between scripture, which is Divine and obligatory; and tradition, which is human and optional and which must be tested against and sanctioned by scripture" (39) He makes the point that the balance between the authority of scripture and that of tradition was a


central element in the upheaval of the Reformation, Rome insisting that scripture did not constitute the sole authority, but required a parallel acceptance of "unwritten traditions" (40)From the point of view of the reformed churches "the only 'tradition' which scripture recognizes is scripture. For 'tradition' (Greek paradosis) is what is handed down, and God's purpose has been that His word, His unique Revelation given to prophets and Apostles, should be transmitted from generation to generation. So the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: 'What you have heard from me ... entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also'.(41) (From Paul to Timothy, from Timothy to faithful men, and from them to others also). " (42)


Stott argues that scripture is apostolic tradition, while ecclesiastical tradition is the teaching of the church" (43)


Ibn Hazm's arguments against the gospels as inspired or revealed is inextricably linked to his conception of Isnad as the test of authenticity.

The absence of evidence of Isnad leads him to conclude that the gospels could not have been written by Jesus' disciples, nor by faithful people. Western scholarship has also concerned itself with the authority of the Christian gospels and has provided material that could be considered to add substantial weight to the complaints of the author of Al-Faisal regarding the lack of Isnad in the Christian tradition.


Streeter, for example, points out that the designation by the early church of certain texts as authentic must now be recognized as subject to error and revision. 2 Peter and James, for example, were not generally received for centuries, despite their antiquity and orthodoxy. If acceptance was slow to arrive for some texts, other texts which were not apostolic were incorrectly designated so: "That the church accepted as Apostolic certain writings which in point of fact were not so, is undoubted"(44 )Wikenhauser also points out that the Canon


remained flexible for a considerable period of time, and that by 200 A. C. "The New Testament at this time is not a closed collection. (45)


The Islamic argument for the original existence of an uncorrupted true Gospel of Jesus also has its parallel in various suppositions made by Western scholars regarding the sources of the four gospels. Eusebius' comment on Matthew: "so then Matthew composed the oracles (Tahoxia) in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could (46) had led many scholars, as Streeter points out, to hypothesize the existence of "a lost collection of the sayings of the Lord, or a collection of proof-texts."(47) Streeter's important work details the complex issues of the relationships between the different early churches that prompted a variety of attitudes towards the authority of certain texts (48)


It is no matter for surprise that the controversies apparent in Western scholarship regarding the authority and

sources of the Christian scriptures should have been traced by Muslim scholars. Rahmatullah, for example, emphasizing the absence of lsnad in the Christian texts points out that the position that Matthew 'might' have been written originally in Hebrew and then translated into Greek, or 'might' have been written in Greek, demonstrates that conjecture, rather than lsnad, is the basis on which the authority of the Gospel text is established (49)


Furthermore he rehearses the problem of canonical acceptance to which, as has been pointed out above,


Streeter and Wikenhauser addressed themselves. The epistles of James, Jude, the second epistle of Peter,


and the second and third of John were ascribed, without evidence, to the Apostles, and remained doubtful until 363 A.C., while John's apocalypse was doubtful until 397 A.C. He points out that Peter's second epistle, Jude's epistle, and John's second and third epistles and Revelation have been rejected by Arab Christians. He refers to the work


of a critic which states that such epistles were not included in the early Christian church, and pointed out that in the Syriac translation the texts mentioned above, and verses 2-11 in John's Gospel chapter two, and the seventh verse of chapter V of John's first epistle are omitted. Indicating the activity of the first Council of Nicea he notes that six epistles and Revelations were rejected. He continues by arguing that in spite of OrigeiVs statement that Paul had written something to ail churches, the epistles ascribed to Paul are not wholly his - his epistle to the Hebrews not having been included by several churchmen. (50 )Even if Paul's epistles are truly his, Rahmatullah ibn Khalil insists on Paul's unacceptability to Muslims. The other disciples, however, who lived after Jesus' ascension can be compared with the good Mujtahidun - legists who formulate independent decisions in legal and theological matters, and who are thus liable to mistakes, hnad is absent in the crucial period preceding the last decade of the second century. For example, the original text of Matthew is missing.

Bearing in mind that the disciples failed to understand Jesus on many occasions,


and that Luke and Mark were not Jesus' disciples,


it is impossible that the gospels should have been inspired, according to Rahmatullah ibn Khalil.(51)


In the writings of Justine Martyr there is a complete suppression of Paul and his letters, there is not even a single quote from the Paulin Corpus, nor is the Apostle ever referred to. On the other hand, his writings contain quotations from the (Old Testament) (the Septuagint).


It is important in this context to quote Helmut Koester's following statement: "While Marcion emphasized the irreconcilable contradictions between the written Gospel and the Jewish scripture, Justin linked the writings which he called "Memoirs of the Apostles" as lightly as possible to the law and the prophets. While Marcion revised the


Gospel of Luke in an effort to eliminate all quotations and references to the law and the prophets,


Justin did not hesitate to revise the texts of Matthew and Luke on several occasions in order to establish an even closer verbal agreement between the prophecies of the Greek Bible and the record of their fulfillment in the text of the gospels. (52)


Moreover, for Justin, the gospels possess the authority of written records, although they are read in service of the church, they are not "Holy Scripture" like the Torah and the other old testament writings.


Justin never hold the "gospels" or the "Memoirs of the Apostles" as inspired writings. While he regularly quotes the law and the Prophet's as Holy Scripture (53)


Marcion who came from Sinope in Pontus to Rome C. A.D. 140, to join the church emphasizes the irreconcilable contradictions between the written Gospel and Jewish Scripture.

The discrepancies and differences between the Jewish and Christian Scriptures or on the one hand; and between the four gospels on the other, shall be treated in detail elsewhere. (54)

Endnotes

1-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 1, p. 156 and vol. 2, pp. 23 ff


2-Ibid., vol. 2. pp. 23 ff; see also al-Biruni, aFAthar al-Baqiya, pp. 15 ff, and Ibn al-Ibri, Tarikh Mukhtasr Ad-Duwal, ed, by Antun Salihani al-Yasui (Beirut, The Catholic Press, 1958), pp. 9 ff.


3-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2, p. 25; see also Sweetman, op. cit., part 2, vol. 1, p. 234.


4-A. R. Buckland, The Universal Bible Dictionary, (London, Lutterworth Press, 1953), pp. 102 f and 434 ff; Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, (London, Adam and Charles Black, 1953), pp. 107 f and Randle short, Modern Discovery and The Bible, (London, The Inter-Varsity fellowship of Evangelica Unions, 1972), pp. 68 ff and Ibn Khalil al-Handi, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 188 f.


5-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2, p. 25.


6-Ibid., p. 20 and 83; and (R. A.), pp. 51 and 74.


7-See e.g. Galatians I, 18:19.


8-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2, p. 42.


9-Ibid., p. 20.


10- Ibid.,p. 21.


11-Ibid., p. 22; see also vAbd as-Salam Harun, Nawadir Al-Makhtutat, (Cairo, Lajnat at-Ta'lif Wa,an-Nashr Press, 1954), pp. 270 f.


12-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisai, vol. 2, p. 84; see also Ibn Khalil al-Hindi, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 188 and Savd ibn Mansur ibn Kammuna, Examination of the Three Faiths, trans, from the Arabic with an introduction and notice by Moshe perlmann (Berkeley, Los Angles/London, University of California Press, 1971), p. 93; A. H. Mcneile, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, Second Edition revised by C. S. C. Williams (Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1953), pp. 110 f; and C.R.T. and T. Clark, 1907), pp. 54 f.


13-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2 pp. 21 f.


14-Ibid.,vol.2,p. 11.


15-Ibid., vol. 2, p. 19.


16-Ibid., p. 64.


17- Ibid vol. l,p. 89.


18-Ibid.


19-Ibn Rabban at-Tabari, Ad-Din Wa Ad-Dawlah, pp. 184 f.


20-Ibn Hazm, Ai-Usul Wa Al-Furu , vol.1, pp. 191 f; see also Timothy, pp. 33 ff. and vAbd al-vAziz Ibn ash-Shikh Hamid ibn Nasir al-Muammir, Minhat Qarib Ai-Mujib Fi Ar-Radd sAla y(Jbbad As-Salib, (Saudi Arabia, Dar Thaqif, 1980), pp. 82 ff.


21-Ibn Hazm, Al-Usui Wa Al-Furu , p. 192.


22-Ibid., p. 46.


23-Ibid.


24-Ibid., pp. 25, 31, 40, 44, 58, 61 and 62.


25-Ibid, vol. 2, p. 12.


26-Qur'an 5:111.


27-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2, pp. 12 f; see also vol. 1, p. 80; available data shows that Abu al-Isba Ibn Sahl al-Asdi al-Qurtubi (d. 486 A. H. = 1039 A. D.), one of Ibn Hazm's most bitter opponents criticized his theory of the roundness of the earth, and objected to his view that the Torah had been corrupted and was thus contradictory; some sections of Abu al-Isba's book are preserved in al-Qarawiyyin Library in Morocco, see Millafat Ibn Hazm, an article in Majallat al-Thaqafa, quoted by Uways, op. cit., p. 380.


28-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2, pp. 12 f; see also vol. 1, p. 80.


29- Ibid., vol. 2, p. 13, Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, vol 5, p. 323; vol. 8, p. 138 and vol. 13, p. 442.


30-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2, p. 13.


31-See p. 99 ff also Monsignor Ignazio de Matteo, op. cit., pp. 70 f.


32-Aj-Jawab As-Sahih, vol. 1, pp. 367 f; also vol, 2, pp. 16 f; see also Ibn Kathir, Fadai'l Al-Qur'an, p. 19.


33-Adv. haereses III, in H. Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, p. 68.


34-Ibid.


35- Ibid., pp. 69 f.


36-Ibid., p. 70.


37-Ibid., p. 71.


38-Ibid.


39-John R. W. Stott, Christ the Controversialist, (London, Tynale Press, 1970), pp. 65-89.


40- Ibid., pp. 76 f.


41- 2 Tim. 2:2.


42- R.W. Stott, op. cit., p. 71.


43-Ibid.


44- B. H. Slreeter. The Four Gospels, A Study of Origins, (London. Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1936), p. 501; see also F. Crawford. Burkilt. The Gospel History and its Transmission. (Edinburgh, T. And T. Clark. 1907), pp. 257 ff.


45- Alfred Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction, trans, by Joseph Cunningham.


(Dublin. Herder and Herder, 1967). p. 42.


46- Quoted in Streeter, op. cit., p. 19.


47- Ibid., p. 20.


48-Ibid., p. 20-22.


49-Rahmatullah ibn Khalil al-Hindi, op. cit., vol. 1. pp. 29 f.


50-Ibid., and pp. 76 f: see also J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius, p. 223, Wikenhauser. op. cit, pp. 54 IT, and C. R. Gregory, op. cit., pp. 54 tJ.


51-Ibn Khalil al-Hindi, op. cit., vol I, pp. 183 ff.


52-Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 37.


53-Ibid., p. 41.


54-See our forthcoming book, The Four Gospels from inside.