Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing? So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah ,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.
@Paul I accept and respect your view that this talks about textual corruption of scripture. However, the Arabic of Q 2:75 does not include “Torah” , but rather it says “…words of Allah, then distort it”.
Also, as we have discussed, how can the unlearned (ummiyun, illetrral in the traditional Islamic view) who know not the book in Q 2:78 write something that could corrupt a scriptural codex or scroll?
these questions and related matters have been discussed quite extensively on this blog recently. You have views which are shared by a small minority of people. You are entitled to your views, however mistaken.
The very earliest Muslim view is clear. Citing the Quranic passage it states:
Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?”
‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbaas said, “O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you.
PauI, think I have answered your question unambiguously a number of times now. To summarise my position: Textual corruption of the previous scriptures is not explicitly and unambiguously stated in the Quran but is found in the Islamic tradition.
I feel I have clearly answered your question several times, even if you do not agree, but I do not feel you have always engaged with my questions.
Could you please clarify your position on my question above concerning Q 2:78-79?
The illiterate is a play on their ignorance of Scripture, God is mocking them:
2:75. Now do you ˹really˺ hope that a people such as this will believe in you, when some of them used to hear God’s words and then change or twist it, even though they understood them?
2:76. When they meet those who believe, they say: “We’ve believed!” But when they’re alone in secret, ˹they˺ say: “Are you telling them about what God has ˹revealed to us previously˺, so that they can make a case against you, with your Lord? Don’t you have any type of common sense or understanding?”
2:77. Do they not understand that God knows what they’re hiding and what they’re showing?
2:78. Among them as well are the ‘illiterate’ ones who don’t know the Scripture except for wishful thinking. They’re only making guesses and assuming.
2:79. May damnation be unleashed on those who write the Scripture with their own hands, then say: “This is from God,” in order to sell it for a worthless price. May damnation be on them for what their hands have written and may damnation be on them for what they’re earning.
You are right, this is a view attributed to Ibn Abbas (perhaps in response to Q 10:94?).
However, the view attributed to Ibn Abbas with regards to Q 2:78 as cited by Al Tabari to this aya, is that the word ummiyun, understood traditionally in the Islamic tradition as illiterate, unlettered, is to be understood as the name of a people who accept no prophet or revealed scripture and accordingly are called so because they oppose the Books of God. Perhaps this is an attempt to reconcile the incongruity of ummiyun in vs. 78 somehow writing in vs. 79.
At any rate, I still do not understand why you put the word “Torah” in Q 2:78 when it says only “kalama Allahi”, “words of Allah”.
I am pleased you finally acknowledge that the very earliest Muslim view is clear: the unambiguous belief in the textual corruption of the previous revelation given to Jews and Christians.
@ Paul
I have consistently maintained that the view of textual corruption is found in the Islamic tradition. I ask the question only in regards to whether or not it is to be found in the Quran itself. I don’t understand why you continuously seem to suggest I say something else.
@ Stew
Yes, that is a possible interpretation. Even so, they still do not know the scripture, in contrast to the other faction in Q 2:75 who understood and then distorted. How would they be able to write something that could corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll?
@ Paul
I said nothing of the sort – what makes you think I suggest that?
You specifically quoted quoted Q 2:75, 79, so what is your understanding of Q 2:78-79? Specifically, how are the “ummiyun” who know not scripture, able to write something that could corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll?
please clarify one thing – do you now accept that the Qur’an teaches textual corruption or was Ibn ‘Abbaas mistaken in his reading of the Qur’an – perhaps he didn’t understand 7th century Arabic as well as you?
“Q 2:75, 79, so what is your understanding of Q 2:78-79? Specifically, how are the “ummiyun” who know not scripture, able to write something that could corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll?”
what grammatical reasons do you have to link “aladheena” to “ummiyun” ?
it said “wa minHUM UMMIYOON LA YA3LAMOON….”
why did it not say in the next line (2:79) “fa waylulahum an….” ?
I do so on contextual grounds, and because the “fa” to me indicates a close connection betweeen vs 78 and 79. If you wish to argue that “lilathena” refers to both groups of vs 75 and 79 or perhaps only to the group in vs 75 you can make that argument. If it refers only to the first group why wait till vs 79 when by now another group has been refered to? If it refers to both groups why put those who knew not and thus not likely to be able to corrupt a scriptural codex or scroll in the same boat as those who presumably could?
I think the verse can be construed with both alayhum and illathena and so I do not think this decides it, either way.
1. God relays stories about bad stuff the Jews did
2. He then says do you think people who did ALL that are going to believe in or follow you when they heard God’s words themselves then altered or twisted them after understanding what He has told them?
3. He then talks about the Jews who pretended to be Muslim in the morning and then leave in the evening time so that the other Jews would go “Oh he left it, I guess it must be no big deal” and how the ones who did that in secret were arguing “How does he know so much knowledge what are you telling him don’t you have any common sense?” God then mocks do they not have any common sense that God knows what the show and hide.
4. Then God mocks the Jews who just make things up or assume things about Scripture as being “illiterate” (i.e. they must not know how to read)
Now how does ALL this tie in? Notice every one of our groups made stuff up about God:
A. Jews who understood what they were commanded in the Torah then altered or twisted it.
B. Jews who made up stuff about the current revelation so that other Jews didn’t follow it.
C. Jews who just talked out of their butt making things up or “assuming” something is in their book when it’s not which is lying on God.
5, So God declares
May damnation be unleashed on those who write the Scripture with their own hands, then say: “This is from God,” in order to sell it for a worthless price. May damnation be on them for what their hands have written and may damnation be on them for what they’re earning.
He has covered every form of altering His revelation through:
A. Physically altering it
B. Lying about it
C. Making assumptions that somethings there that’s not and spreading it to others.
Because vss 76-77 describe what the first group talk about when they meet believers and what they say internally. Then moves on to a different party in vs 78.
But you still have not engaged with my previous questions.
“Because vss 76-77 describe what the first group talk about when they meet believers and what they say internally. Then moves on to a different party in vs 78.”
How does this mean that the “fa” used is for “different party” ?
What kind of “fa” is being used and where is the proof of your “close connection” ?
The group in vs. 78 consists of “ummiyun” who do not know the scripture. They are not in a good spot to corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll. The “fa” follows in vs. 79 and so it would be natural to assume that it refers to this group. So how are these “ummiyun” who do not know the scripture able to corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll in order to fit the “woe…” in vs. 79?
The group in vs. 75, does understand the words of God, in contrast to the group of vs. 78, and shift it/distort it (yuharifuna). Yuharifuna in my understanding is a sort of oral distortion. The Quran gives two examples of this in Q 4:46 and 5:41. If the “tahrif” in 2:75 and in 5:13 refer to this kind of distortion then they would not fit the description of Q 2:79 (and thus it is natural that the “fa…” does not include this group). If corruption of text is meant this is not explicitly stated and there is no unequivocal occurrence in the Quran from where this is evident, whereas there is clear evidence for oral corruption. Since the text is not explicit the classical Islamic scholars were divided on the issue. Tabari, as one scholar points out, considers Q 2:75 to deal with oral/interpretational “tahrif” whereas others might see it as textual corruption.
Now, Q 2:76-77 shifts the focus on what the group of vs. 75 says externally and internally and shifts focus once more in vs. 78 to another party. When we then start vs. with “fa” one the intervening three verses do not, in my opinion, naturally lead to connecting the “fa”, and with it, the rest of the verse, with the group of vs. 75. I am not saying it is impossible on this ground alone to connect them. But I would consider it reasonable to ask you to make an argument for it.
However, contextually, as I see it, we now have difficult situation in need of resolve: the group of vs. 75, presumably have the prerequisites to textually corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll. They are not explicitly said to have done it and we depend on vs. 79 for the link to be made. On the other hand the group of vs. 78 does not seem to have good prerequisites to textually corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll, yet, the “fa” points to them. So we have to provide an interpretation that takes this into account.
If the “fa” and the remainder of vs. 79, talks about both groups, why does it place to the two groups in the same boat, when only the group of vs. 75 were in a good position to row the boat (textually corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll)? If this is your position I would ask you to make an argument that the “fa” refers also to the group of vs. 75 as well as why it includes the ummiyun of vs. 78 who know not , when they are in a bad position to textually corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll and thus the “woe…” would be less appropriate for them?
If Q 2:79 talks only about the group in v. 75, the group who actually have the prerequisites to textually corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll, why did it not place vs. 79 in a “contextually better” place, for example ,after vs. 77? As is, it implies that the group with poor prerequisites of vs. 78, are part of those spoken of in vs. 79.
“The group in vs. 78 consists of “ummiyun” who do not know the scripture. They are not in a good spot to corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll. The “fa” follows in vs. 79 and so it would be natural to assume that it refers to this group”
why would it be “natural to assume that it refers to this group” because you say so?
“78 does not seem to have good prerequisites to textually corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll, yet, the “fa” points to them”
so these illiterates who do not know how to read and write , WRITE the book with their own hands and say “this is from God ” ?
It is not because I say so. If a topic is discussed in aya A and aya B begins with “fa”, would it not be natural to read it as referring back to aya A? Again, you may argue that it refers to something else, but please present an argument for that.
I have an opinion on how to resolve the issue. We can speculate. I respectfully disagree with the solution proposed by Ibn Abbas (as most seem to) as reported by Al Tabari (see above), but he astutely noted the difficulty in the text, and tried to deal with it.
You have not yet argued for any understanding that takes into account these difficulties. So please present an argument.
I gave the evidence in the paragraph you cite, e.g, Q 4:46 and 5:41. Please consult the entire paragraph.
Nobody said it could not be a pattern (though you have not made a case for it yet). I am simply pointing out the difficulty of having ignorant people corrupting a scriptual codex or scroll – as well as the problem with attributing bs 79 to the group in vs 75.
I do not feel you are engaging, so could we agree to disagree?
so you continue without providing no evidence just selecting tafsir which you think helps your case. I ask again, what “fa” is used in the ayah?
Evidence that:
yuharifu refers JUST TO distortion of the tounge
evidence that :
Yaktubu and yuharifu are not linked
I read that all these groups united in their crimes
Thats my argument
when i say a b a b i am trying to ask if there is a chiasmus link , if there is , then your argument is throughly demolished because yuharifu and yaktubu would be linked
I consider it best to stop here, as you have still not argued your case and not engaged with the difficulties.
I stated the simple fact that out of four occurrences of the hrf verbal form two explicitly describe interpretational corruption and two are not specyfying the nature of corruption. Since the text is not specific on this point the classical scholars of Islam were divided on the issue. I mentioned that both textual and oral corruption were proposed. I mentioned Ibn Abbas’ position because he noted a problem to be resolved and he was not the only one to note it. Whatever you may consider to be a solution you will have to try and deal with it.
“I stated the simple fact that out of four occurrences of the hrf verbal form two explicitly describe interpretational corruption and two are not specyfying the nature of corruption.”
“Interpretational corruption” is not derived from the hrf verbal form
if God said
your are gods
Then scribe said
You are angels
Thats harrafa
“Interpretation corruption” is an INJECTION into the root word.
@ Stewjo0044
I promised you to briefly deal with some of your explicit evidence for textual corruption, in the Quran, so here it goes. I am sure that we will not come to an agreement, so I think perhaps it is best, respectfully, to agree to disagree. I think it would be only fair if you will making a closing statement. I divide my final reply in two parts.
PART I
The only passage that, as I see it, explicitly talks of textual corruption is 2:75-79. Since it has now been extensively discussed, I will just summarize, and deal with a point you made yesterday.
Q 2:75, as I understand it, does not explicitly talk of textual corruption. The verb form of the root hrf, to slant, twist, distort is used four times in the Quran. Twice, on my reading, it explicitly indicates corruption by interpretation (Q 4:46; 5:41) and twice the nature of distortion is not specified. Thus we have explicit evidence that hrf refers to something other than textual corruption, whereas there is no explicit evidence for textual corruption. Since 2:75 is not explicit arguments were made both for textual and interpretational corruption.
As one scholar has pointed out, Al Tabari did not consider 2:75 as referring to textual corruption and neither did Sayyid Qutb to mention one ancient and one modern Islamic commentator.
Q 2:78-79 is problematic, I have pointed out some of the difficulties above. You made an argument explaining with four points how to understand the verses. I am glad to see that you are dealing directly with the issues in a helpful manner and I do think you made a good point. Let me offer my position. In my understanding, “ummiyun” in Q 2:78 (derived from ummah), never means illiterate in the Quran as traditionally understood in Islamic thought (This is a “schism” in understanding, if you wish, between “western” and Islamic scholarship). In Q 2:78 I take it to mean uneducated, uninformed and as the text says, “know not the scripture”. Thus, this group is contrasted to the group who is informed in Q 2:75. So what they write, is perhaps at best a limited text written on material at hand, that they sell, to those who know no better, and claim it is from God (I quoted an Islamic source to this effect I a previous post). At any rate, whatever speculative “solutions” one may come up with to reconcile the “ummiyun” writing, whatever they might have written, would not, on the face of it, be likely to corrupt a scriptural codex or scroll, as they are uneducated and know not the scripture. You argued that “ummiyun” is used mockingly, ironically, but as I see it, it is used as a contrast to those of vs. 75 and thus makes good sense as is. But I do think it could be a legitimate interpretation.
Also, I am not sure what difference there is between the two groups (if any?) on your reading, if both presumably are sufficiently knowledgeable and able to corrupt a scriptural codex or scroll. If there is no difference why would they be presented as two groups? Even if one accepts the possibility of mockery/irony, it is no longer obvious that this is the only legitimate or possible understanding.
I would like also, to ask – and I ask sincerely to understand – is the view that “ummiyun” of vs. 78 is used mockingly or ironically found in the classical sources? I ask sincerely to learn, I am not saying it is there and I am not saying it is not.
The fact that there are various interpretations (prompted by difficulties in the text) and scholars on both sides of the fence would appear to testify that the matter is not as one-dimensional as previously considered.
In conclusion, then, I maintain my position that textual corruption is not explicitly and unambiguously stated in the Quran. Please note my relatively “modest” position (at least when compared to absolutist claims). I did not state one could not make a case for it, but simply that it is not found explicitly and unambiguously in the Quran.
Hope you have a nice weekend
PS
To briefly reply to the two other of your explicit references:
5:12-16 does not explicitly talk of textual corruption but of hiding and forgetting. In addition to the verb hrf, on which cf. above.
6:91 talks about hiding scrolls, not explicitly mentioning that they altered the text itself.
“it explicitly indicates corruption by interpretation ”
“Corrupt interpretation” cannot mean DISTORTION
Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were
they understood it, distorted it and then copied their distortion. “Woah to those who write the book with their own hands”
it would make no sense if all they were doing was misinterpreting/misinterpretation cannot mean “uharrif”
“In Q 2:78 I take it to mean uneducated, uninformed and as the text says, “know not the scripture”. Thus, this group is contrasted to the group who is informed in Q 2:75. So what they write, is perhaps at best a limited text written on material at hand,
”
It says they write the book and then say it is from god. the stories about moses in quran from baqarah are not a match to the ones in the ot, so now we have further proof that the quranic author specifically albaqarah consider torah corrupt.
quran said that the jews slandered mary and killed the prophets ,so why is it telling the jews this in muhummad pbuh time? Because it seems they r united in the crimes so there distortion of torah pre dates muhammad and it continues in his times .
If you could please stop it with the “I’m just trying to understand” when you’re obviously a pretentious troll that would be fantastic. Thanks. (Oh and to pre-empt your “I’m not a troll I’m just trying, blah, blah, blah” people who are trying to learn, accept ALL literature of the opposing side and don’t make baseless accusations of forgery so they can keep trying to twist a text)
Anyways moving on:
1.Tabari and tafseer mentioning Illiterate as mocking
To begin Muslims are not bound by Tabari’s opinions. Even if he favored this verse did not refer to textual corruption he (like every other Muslim on planet Earth) believed it. However, Tabari IS of the opinion this ayah is referring to textual corruption, mentions several heavy hitters who mention it and as a bonus talks about it being sarcastic. I was originally going to translate it but since “you know Arabic” so well from your discussion on “fa” with Mr. Heathcliff I’ll leave it all untranslated for you so you can read the original text for yourself: From his tafseer of 2:76:
2.Your opinion
No one cares for it nor was it asked. The meaning of the text has been explicitly stated by the people who were there and pretty much all Muslims scholarship agrees so pardon us for believing them over you.
3. Your Games with clear verses
Yep keep playing games with the obvious meaning of the text Sam. Up means down, left really means right, etc. Simple question: “What does it mean to “twist God’s words” and “Write a Scripture with your own hand”? This entire argument is silly and makes absolutely no sense.
(1) I wrote “Al Tabari did not consider 2:75 as referring to textual corruption”. In his commentary Al Tabari accepts the view of Ibn Ishaq, namely, that when Moses and the elders came down from the mountain some changed what God had told them “Moses said to the Israelites: God has commanded you to do so and so. This group whom God mentioned said, actually he said so and so, the opposite of what God told them. It is those God meant when He revealed this to his messenger…”
As for 2:78 I will admit that I am not sure what Al Tabari means and so I did not refer to it specifically. Al Tabari appears to say that “ummiyun” are their mothers’ child, in contrast to their fathers’ in as much as they can not write. Since he subsequently, goes on to talk about changing God’s words I do not know how to resolve this – so let me advise anyone to read the full commentary for themselves and make their own judgement. At any rate, Ibn Abbas, as quoted by AL Tabari, to this aya, did not consider this a reference to the people of the book, but to a different people.
Are you saying that the particle “fa” is not normally understood to refer to what immediately precedes it? Even if you take it here to function as a resumptive particle, no argument was made for that understanding.
(2) You asked that I deal directly with the verses you quoted, so I stated my opinion. Yes, I accept and respect that most Muslims are of the opposing view. But that is not the what we disagree on.
(3) Yes, they wrote with their own hands (cf. Al Tabari to this aya), we agree on that. The question is if what these “ummiyun” were able to write could corrupt a scriptural codex or scroll.
“Are you saying that the particle “fa” is not normally understood to refer to what immediately precedes it? Even if you take it here to function as a resumptive particle, no argument was made for that understanding.”
the thing is when the attributes of the people who know and don’t know are highlighted, you twist the meaning of ummi and tie the “fa” to them. this means you are desperate.
OK, I’ll bite for the absolutely last time. In my reading, the group of vs. 75 is contrasted with the group of vs. 78. One group understands, the other group does not. The irony is that both groups twist the words of God; one group explicitly in writing the other not specified, but in any case the focus on their “talk” in the next two ayats (76-77) may be seen as a contrast to the “writing” of vs. 79. Is that a legitimate or illegitimate reading? I’ll let the readers decide for themselves.
I still do not feel you have presented a cogent case that takes into account the complexities of this unit. What, on the reading you prefer is the difference between the group of vs. 75 and the group of vs. 79? It appears to me that what you are saying is, that the first group are expert scribes who understand the correct meaning of the written text and then alter it. The second group are also expert scribes who comprehend the correct meaning of the written text and then alter it. Except that this second group is called “ummiyin” (uneducated?) who know not the scripture, whereas in reality they know perfectly well what they are doing, gaining thereby. To me, the irony, of calling somebody who masters a profession to such a degree that he can mislead others, an “ummi who know not”, is not really obvious.
Be that as it may. You appear to consider the “ummiyun, who know not” of Q 2:78, as so obviously ironic that it hardly needs elucidation. Maybe so. But why, then, did Ibn Abbas and other scholars as per Al Tabari, put forward solutions different to the one you propose?
“t appears to me that what you are saying is, that the first group are expert scribes who understand the correct meaning of the written text and then alter it. The second group are also expert scribes who comprehend the correct meaning of the written text and then alter it. Except that this second group is called “ummiyin” (uneducated?) who know not the scripture, whereas in reality they know perfectly well what they are doing, gaining thereby. To me, the irony, of calling somebody who masters a profession to such a degree that he can mislead others, an “ummi who know not”, is not really obvious.”
WTF r u talking about ? who the f…. said anything about the second group being “expert scribes” GTFOH
1. Why did Tabari put for a different interpretation?
Because…he’s a human? He may interpret differently or just be plain wrong, we don’t worship our scholars not really that complex. I can name dozens of scholars that have made mistakes or read things legitimately in a different way. As for Ibn Abbas(ra) he is just saying the general meaning of the word but even then there are times he is incorrect. One example off the top of my head I HIGHLY disagree with him Jesus(as) being replaced on the cross with someone else as the grammar doesn’t really favor it.
2. Twisting
Idk why you feel both can’t twist especially when taking into account Muhammad’s (saw) polemic with the Jews in Medina. The Rabbis were some of his major opponents so bearing this mind:
2:75. Now do you ˹really˺ hope that a people such as this will believe in you, when some of them used to hear God’s words and then change or twist it, even though they understood them?
Two ways to understand either Muhammad(saw) or the Muslims who are allies with the Jewish tribes. The later is more likely due to the plural usage and ahadith.
2:76. When they meet those who believe, they say: “We’ve believed!” But when they’re alone in secret, ˹they˺ say: “Are you telling them about what God has ˹revealed to us previously˺, so that they can make a case against you, with your Lord? Don’t you have any type of common sense or understanding?”
2:77. Do they not understand that God knows what they’re hiding and what they’re showing?
First case of sarcasm, the Jews tried a trick it failed God played off what they said to one another. No reason to think there won’t be more in the passage.
2:78. Among them as well are the ‘illiterate’ ones who don’t know the Scripture except for wishful thinking. They’re only making guesses and assuming.
So who are among the Jews who are “ummiyun” illiterate people who don’t know Scripture (i.e they don’t read so they make things up bs and say its in there) For example, I was debating a missionary on this blog and he claimed the Jews were only permitted to fight within the boundries of the Holy Land and never conquer surrounding territories. I then disproved this. In this case he wrote a law and claimed God had said this and showed his “illiteracy” of Scripture. He blindly copied what some pastor had told him. Another time, when we were discussing salvation with Christians one claimed that Jesus(as) transcended space and time saving eveybody on Earth. This is writi g your own religion.
2:79. May damnation be unleashed on those who write the Scripture with their own hands, then say: “This is from God,” in order to sell it for a worthless price. May damnation be on them for what their hands have written and may damnation be on them for what they’re earning.
Are text in question. Let’s see an example in the next passage of something the they invented in the Talmud.
2:80 They claim the Fire of Hell will never touch us or only for a few days
This is mentioned in the Talmud that one can only be in Hell for a 12 months. This is directly in their text ALL the Talmud is not bad as Islam agrees with things mentioned but God gives an example of something they changed.
Thank you for your reply. Since I sense a more conciliatory tone, in your previous post I allow myself a final reply to you and to Mr. Heathcliff to clarify a few points,that I perhaps failed communicate clearly.
I never suggested – and completely agree with you – that one should not worship scholars, regardless of stripe. I also completely agree with your point that scholars can differ on legitimate interpretations or be plain wrong. The reason I mention Al Tabari is to argue that differences in interpretation came from those who were intimately familiar with the text and were not hostile to it, such as many missionaries are.
An even more fundamental point is identifying textual and exegetical difficulties. The case here being the problem of the “ummiyun” writing something. It appears to me, that this is the difficulty, Ibn Abbas is trying to address with his interpretation. He appears to understand that the “fa” in vs. 79 does refer to the the group of vs. 78. Thus, he proposes that “ummiyun” means here, something else than being illiterate. That is what “western” scholars have proposed (they propose it to mean uneducated, unlearned) and it is also reflected in a translation by a Muslim scholar such as that of Abdel Haleem, who translates “ummiyun “as “uneducated”. To be clear, I am not suggesting Prof. Abdel Haleem agrees with my understanding of textual corruption, but simply that he appears to take the “fa” of vs. 79 to refer to the “ummiyun” of vs. 78. If Ibn Abbas and Abdel Haleem did take the “fa” to refer to the group of vs. 75 (or to someone else altogether), they would presumably have proposed a different interpretation.
You write that: “Idk why you feel both can’t twist…”. I did mention the irony that both groups twist the words of God. I do argue, however, that vs. 79 does not refer to the group of vs. 75 but to the group of vs. 78.
With regard to the historical interrelationship between various religious groups in Medina I do not know. With regard to your experience with missionaries, I am not really a fan of missionaries or mission even when done in a sincere and respectful way.
I appreciate that you ask for evidence that “ummiyun” means here something else than illiterate and for the root hrf. Please see my reply to Stewjo004 above. Sin reverse order.
Hrf as a verbal form appears four times in the Quran (Q 2:75; 4:46; 5:13; 5:41, but see participle in 8:16) and once as a noun in Q 22:11. The basic meaning appears to be to slant, to turn with other meanings such as edge (i.e., Q 22:11, cf. the root in Lane’s Arabic Lexicon), and so taken as to “tamper with”. I do not understand to, in and of itself, mean corrupting a text. Especially since the Quran twice explicitly connects it with twisting of words (Q 4:46 and 5:41) and the other two times does not specify the nature of corruption. Thus, as I have twice quoted the opinion of modern scholars, to the effect, the Quran is not explicit about how and when corruption was perpetrated. It is for these reasons, I argued, that the classical commentators of Islam distinguished between tahrif lafzi (distortion of the text) and tahrif manawi (distortion of the meaning or “interpretation”). The noun tahrif itself does not appear in the Quran itself.
Regarding “ummi” please see my reply to Stewj004. In addition I refer you to the article of Prof. Sebastian Günther: “Muhammad, the Illiterate Prophet: An Islamic Creed in the Qur’an and Qur’anic Exegesis”, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2002), pp. 1-26. In my opinion, this is a helpful discussion on how this word has been understood by both traditional Islamic scholars as well as modern scholars.
You seem to take the “fa” of vs. 78 to refer back to the group in vs. 75. I have here, and in earlier posts, clarified why and how I consider it to refer to vs. 79 as well as how that is supported contextually, structurally, philologically and cited scholars who understand it similarly (only that the “fa” refers to the group in vs. 78 – not the textual corruption part).
I still feel you have not responded to my question, namely if vs. 79 refers to the group of vs. 75 (and excluding the one in vs. 78) why was it not placed prior to vs. 78? As it stands now, those who are able to and those who are unable to corrupt a scriptural scroll or codex are put in the same boat. The distance in ayats and the shift of focus to the other group, in addition to the considerations I have pointed out above, can easily lead to a different understanding than yours. This is evidenced not only by “western” scholarship but by Muslim scholarship well, as evidenced by Ibn Abbas and Prof. Abdel Haleem (and one could add many others). It would appear to me, then, at the very least, that taking the” fa” as referring back to the group of vs. 78 is a legitimate interpretation.
Sorry a small correction, dint quite get all verse nos. correct:
The sentence: ”You seem to take the “fa” of vs. 78 to refer back to the group in vs. 75 I have here, and in earlier posts, clarified why and how I consider it to refer to vs. 79….” Should read “You seem to take the “fa” of vs. 79 to refer back to the group in vs. 75 I have here, and in earlier posts, clarified why and how I consider it to refer to vs. 78”.
The very earliest Muslim view is clear. Citing a Quranic passage:
Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?”
‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbaas said, “O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you.”
Ibn ‘Abbaas was a senior companion of Muhammad upon who be peace, and is a most trustworthy interpreter of the Qur’an.
Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing? So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah ,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.
– Qur’an 2:75,79
@Paul I accept and respect your view that this talks about textual corruption of scripture. However, the Arabic of Q 2:75 does not include “Torah” , but rather it says “…words of Allah, then distort it”.
Also, as we have discussed, how can the unlearned (ummiyun, illetrral in the traditional Islamic view) who know not the book in Q 2:78 write something that could corrupt a scriptural codex or scroll?
these questions and related matters have been discussed quite extensively on this blog recently. You have views which are shared by a small minority of people. You are entitled to your views, however mistaken.
The very earliest Muslim view is clear. Citing the Quranic passage it states:
Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?”
‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbaas said, “O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you.
PauI, think I have answered your question unambiguously a number of times now. To summarise my position: Textual corruption of the previous scriptures is not explicitly and unambiguously stated in the Quran but is found in the Islamic tradition.
I feel I have clearly answered your question several times, even if you do not agree, but I do not feel you have always engaged with my questions.
Could you please clarify your position on my question above concerning Q 2:78-79?
@ Sam
The illiterate is a play on their ignorance of Scripture, God is mocking them:
2:75. Now do you ˹really˺ hope that a people such as this will believe in you, when some of them used to hear God’s words and then change or twist it, even though they understood them?
2:76. When they meet those who believe, they say: “We’ve believed!” But when they’re alone in secret, ˹they˺ say: “Are you telling them about what God has ˹revealed to us previously˺, so that they can make a case against you, with your Lord? Don’t you have any type of common sense or understanding?”
2:77. Do they not understand that God knows what they’re hiding and what they’re showing?
2:78. Among them as well are the ‘illiterate’ ones who don’t know the Scripture except for wishful thinking. They’re only making guesses and assuming.
2:79. May damnation be unleashed on those who write the Scripture with their own hands, then say: “This is from God,” in order to sell it for a worthless price. May damnation be on them for what their hands have written and may damnation be on them for what they’re earning.
You are right, this is a view attributed to Ibn Abbas (perhaps in response to Q 10:94?).
However, the view attributed to Ibn Abbas with regards to Q 2:78 as cited by Al Tabari to this aya, is that the word ummiyun, understood traditionally in the Islamic tradition as illiterate, unlettered, is to be understood as the name of a people who accept no prophet or revealed scripture and accordingly are called so because they oppose the Books of God. Perhaps this is an attempt to reconcile the incongruity of ummiyun in vs. 78 somehow writing in vs. 79.
At any rate, I still do not understand why you put the word “Torah” in Q 2:78 when it says only “kalama Allahi”, “words of Allah”.
I am pleased you finally acknowledge that the very earliest Muslim view is clear: the unambiguous belief in the textual corruption of the previous revelation given to Jews and Christians.
@ Paul
I have consistently maintained that the view of textual corruption is found in the Islamic tradition. I ask the question only in regards to whether or not it is to be found in the Quran itself. I don’t understand why you continuously seem to suggest I say something else.
@ Stew
Yes, that is a possible interpretation. Even so, they still do not know the scripture, in contrast to the other faction in Q 2:75 who understood and then distorted. How would they be able to write something that could corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll?
@ Sam
Yes, of course it is found in the Quran and Ibn ‘Abbaas gives the correct view of this in the hadith I quoted.
If you are seriously suggesting that Ibn ‘Abbaas, a 7th century Arab, didn’t understand 7th century Arabic properly..
@ Paul
I said nothing of the sort – what makes you think I suggest that?
You specifically quoted quoted Q 2:75, 79, so what is your understanding of Q 2:78-79? Specifically, how are the “ummiyun” who know not scripture, able to write something that could corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll?
@ Sam
please clarify one thing – do you now accept that the Qur’an teaches textual corruption or was Ibn ‘Abbaas mistaken in his reading of the Qur’an – perhaps he didn’t understand 7th century Arabic as well as you?
thanks.
“Q 2:75, 79, so what is your understanding of Q 2:78-79? Specifically, how are the “ummiyun” who know not scripture, able to write something that could corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll?”
what grammatical reasons do you have to link “aladheena” to “ummiyun” ?
it said “wa minHUM UMMIYOON LA YA3LAMOON….”
why did it not say in the next line (2:79) “fa waylulahum an….” ?
@ Sam
I wrote up top explaining it for you.
I do so on contextual grounds, and because the “fa” to me indicates a close connection betweeen vs 78 and 79. If you wish to argue that “lilathena” refers to both groups of vs 75 and 79 or perhaps only to the group in vs 75 you can make that argument. If it refers only to the first group why wait till vs 79 when by now another group has been refered to? If it refers to both groups why put those who knew not and thus not likely to be able to corrupt a scriptural codex or scroll in the same boat as those who presumably could?
I think the verse can be construed with both alayhum and illathena and so I do not think this decides it, either way.
@ Sam
Stop overthinking this:
1. God relays stories about bad stuff the Jews did
2. He then says do you think people who did ALL that are going to believe in or follow you when they heard God’s words themselves then altered or twisted them after understanding what He has told them?
3. He then talks about the Jews who pretended to be Muslim in the morning and then leave in the evening time so that the other Jews would go “Oh he left it, I guess it must be no big deal” and how the ones who did that in secret were arguing “How does he know so much knowledge what are you telling him don’t you have any common sense?” God then mocks do they not have any common sense that God knows what the show and hide.
4. Then God mocks the Jews who just make things up or assume things about Scripture as being “illiterate” (i.e. they must not know how to read)
Now how does ALL this tie in? Notice every one of our groups made stuff up about God:
A. Jews who understood what they were commanded in the Torah then altered or twisted it.
B. Jews who made up stuff about the current revelation so that other Jews didn’t follow it.
C. Jews who just talked out of their butt making things up or “assuming” something is in their book when it’s not which is lying on God.
5, So God declares
May damnation be unleashed on those who write the Scripture with their own hands, then say: “This is from God,” in order to sell it for a worthless price. May damnation be on them for what their hands have written and may damnation be on them for what they’re earning.
He has covered every form of altering His revelation through:
A. Physically altering it
B. Lying about it
C. Making assumptions that somethings there that’s not and spreading it to others.
I do not know what you are talking about.
A:
Wa hum ya3lamoon
Wa hum yuharifoonaHU
FAREEQUN minhum
B
wa MINhum unlettered
La ya3lamoon
C
Fa.
.wayluliladeen yaktubuna
how does “fa” indicate “close connection”
to MINhum umeeyoon?
Because vss 76-77 describe what the first group talk about when they meet believers and what they say internally. Then moves on to a different party in vs 78.
But you still have not engaged with my previous questions.
“Because vss 76-77 describe what the first group talk about when they meet believers and what they say internally. Then moves on to a different party in vs 78.”
How does this mean that the “fa” used is for “different party” ?
What kind of “fa” is being used and where is the proof of your “close connection” ?
“Because vss 76-77 describe what the first group talk about when they meet believers and what they say internally.”
you can show that “the ones who distort” / split group who do the distortions are the same as those who say “we believe”
?
Wha I”m saying is that Q 2:75/-77 talks of one group and Q 2:78-79 talk iof another.
If you wish to say that vs.79 talks of both groups or , only one of them (sub group?) then you can make that argument.
So could you please make an argument for your understanding?
“Wha I”m saying is that Q 2:75/-77 talks of one group and Q 2:78-79 talk iof another.”
So ? What are the attributes highlighted for these particular groups
i am asking u about the uses of particular words like “fa”
Is it a “fa” of COMPLETELY NEW SENTENCE I.E no link
?
is it a “fa” which is used to link based on the attributes highlighted of the previous groups ?
The group in vs. 78 consists of “ummiyun” who do not know the scripture. They are not in a good spot to corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll. The “fa” follows in vs. 79 and so it would be natural to assume that it refers to this group. So how are these “ummiyun” who do not know the scripture able to corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll in order to fit the “woe…” in vs. 79?
The group in vs. 75, does understand the words of God, in contrast to the group of vs. 78, and shift it/distort it (yuharifuna). Yuharifuna in my understanding is a sort of oral distortion. The Quran gives two examples of this in Q 4:46 and 5:41. If the “tahrif” in 2:75 and in 5:13 refer to this kind of distortion then they would not fit the description of Q 2:79 (and thus it is natural that the “fa…” does not include this group). If corruption of text is meant this is not explicitly stated and there is no unequivocal occurrence in the Quran from where this is evident, whereas there is clear evidence for oral corruption. Since the text is not explicit the classical Islamic scholars were divided on the issue. Tabari, as one scholar points out, considers Q 2:75 to deal with oral/interpretational “tahrif” whereas others might see it as textual corruption.
Now, Q 2:76-77 shifts the focus on what the group of vs. 75 says externally and internally and shifts focus once more in vs. 78 to another party. When we then start vs. with “fa” one the intervening three verses do not, in my opinion, naturally lead to connecting the “fa”, and with it, the rest of the verse, with the group of vs. 75. I am not saying it is impossible on this ground alone to connect them. But I would consider it reasonable to ask you to make an argument for it.
However, contextually, as I see it, we now have difficult situation in need of resolve: the group of vs. 75, presumably have the prerequisites to textually corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll. They are not explicitly said to have done it and we depend on vs. 79 for the link to be made. On the other hand the group of vs. 78 does not seem to have good prerequisites to textually corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll, yet, the “fa” points to them. So we have to provide an interpretation that takes this into account.
If the “fa” and the remainder of vs. 79, talks about both groups, why does it place to the two groups in the same boat, when only the group of vs. 75 were in a good position to row the boat (textually corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll)? If this is your position I would ask you to make an argument that the “fa” refers also to the group of vs. 75 as well as why it includes the ummiyun of vs. 78 who know not , when they are in a bad position to textually corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll and thus the “woe…” would be less appropriate for them?
If Q 2:79 talks only about the group in v. 75, the group who actually have the prerequisites to textually corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll, why did it not place vs. 79 in a “contextually better” place, for example ,after vs. 77? As is, it implies that the group with poor prerequisites of vs. 78, are part of those spoken of in vs. 79.
“The group in vs. 78 consists of “ummiyun” who do not know the scripture. They are not in a good spot to corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll. The “fa” follows in vs. 79 and so it would be natural to assume that it refers to this group”
why would it be “natural to assume that it refers to this group” because you say so?
“78 does not seem to have good prerequisites to textually corrupt a scriptual codex or scroll, yet, the “fa” points to them”
so these illiterates who do not know how to read and write , WRITE the book with their own hands and say “this is from God ” ?
“Yuharifuna in my understanding is a sort of oral distortion. ”
where is your evidence that it means “is a sort of oral distortion” ?
“If it refers only to the first group why wait till vs 79 when by now another group has been refered to?”
why cant the quran follow the following pattern
a b a b?
I feel you are not really engaging.
It is not because I say so. If a topic is discussed in aya A and aya B begins with “fa”, would it not be natural to read it as referring back to aya A? Again, you may argue that it refers to something else, but please present an argument for that.
I have an opinion on how to resolve the issue. We can speculate. I respectfully disagree with the solution proposed by Ibn Abbas (as most seem to) as reported by Al Tabari (see above), but he astutely noted the difficulty in the text, and tried to deal with it.
You have not yet argued for any understanding that takes into account these difficulties. So please present an argument.
I gave the evidence in the paragraph you cite, e.g, Q 4:46 and 5:41. Please consult the entire paragraph.
Nobody said it could not be a pattern (though you have not made a case for it yet). I am simply pointing out the difficulty of having ignorant people corrupting a scriptual codex or scroll – as well as the problem with attributing bs 79 to the group in vs 75.
I do not feel you are engaging, so could we agree to disagree?
Vs 79 not bs 79. My apologies.
In the paragraph I referred to above, the four ayats all use the verbal form of hrf, to shift, slant, distort. Please read the Arabic text.
so you continue without providing no evidence just selecting tafsir which you think helps your case. I ask again, what “fa” is used in the ayah?
Evidence that:
yuharifu refers JUST TO distortion of the tounge
evidence that :
Yaktubu and yuharifu are not linked
I read that all these groups united in their crimes
Thats my argument
when i say a b a b i am trying to ask if there is a chiasmus link , if there is , then your argument is throughly demolished because yuharifu and yaktubu would be linked
I consider it best to stop here, as you have still not argued your case and not engaged with the difficulties.
I stated the simple fact that out of four occurrences of the hrf verbal form two explicitly describe interpretational corruption and two are not specyfying the nature of corruption. Since the text is not specific on this point the classical scholars of Islam were divided on the issue. I mentioned that both textual and oral corruption were proposed. I mentioned Ibn Abbas’ position because he noted a problem to be resolved and he was not the only one to note it. Whatever you may consider to be a solution you will have to try and deal with it.
I wish you a nice weekend
“I stated the simple fact that out of four occurrences of the hrf verbal form two explicitly describe interpretational corruption and two are not specyfying the nature of corruption.”
“Interpretational corruption” is not derived from the hrf verbal form
if God said
your are gods
Then scribe said
You are angels
Thats harrafa
“Interpretation corruption” is an INJECTION into the root word.
@ Stewjo0044
I promised you to briefly deal with some of your explicit evidence for textual corruption, in the Quran, so here it goes. I am sure that we will not come to an agreement, so I think perhaps it is best, respectfully, to agree to disagree. I think it would be only fair if you will making a closing statement. I divide my final reply in two parts.
PART I
The only passage that, as I see it, explicitly talks of textual corruption is 2:75-79. Since it has now been extensively discussed, I will just summarize, and deal with a point you made yesterday.
Q 2:75, as I understand it, does not explicitly talk of textual corruption. The verb form of the root hrf, to slant, twist, distort is used four times in the Quran. Twice, on my reading, it explicitly indicates corruption by interpretation (Q 4:46; 5:41) and twice the nature of distortion is not specified. Thus we have explicit evidence that hrf refers to something other than textual corruption, whereas there is no explicit evidence for textual corruption. Since 2:75 is not explicit arguments were made both for textual and interpretational corruption.
As one scholar has pointed out, Al Tabari did not consider 2:75 as referring to textual corruption and neither did Sayyid Qutb to mention one ancient and one modern Islamic commentator.
Q 2:78-79 is problematic, I have pointed out some of the difficulties above. You made an argument explaining with four points how to understand the verses. I am glad to see that you are dealing directly with the issues in a helpful manner and I do think you made a good point. Let me offer my position. In my understanding, “ummiyun” in Q 2:78 (derived from ummah), never means illiterate in the Quran as traditionally understood in Islamic thought (This is a “schism” in understanding, if you wish, between “western” and Islamic scholarship). In Q 2:78 I take it to mean uneducated, uninformed and as the text says, “know not the scripture”. Thus, this group is contrasted to the group who is informed in Q 2:75. So what they write, is perhaps at best a limited text written on material at hand, that they sell, to those who know no better, and claim it is from God (I quoted an Islamic source to this effect I a previous post). At any rate, whatever speculative “solutions” one may come up with to reconcile the “ummiyun” writing, whatever they might have written, would not, on the face of it, be likely to corrupt a scriptural codex or scroll, as they are uneducated and know not the scripture. You argued that “ummiyun” is used mockingly, ironically, but as I see it, it is used as a contrast to those of vs. 75 and thus makes good sense as is. But I do think it could be a legitimate interpretation.
PART II
Also, I am not sure what difference there is between the two groups (if any?) on your reading, if both presumably are sufficiently knowledgeable and able to corrupt a scriptural codex or scroll. If there is no difference why would they be presented as two groups? Even if one accepts the possibility of mockery/irony, it is no longer obvious that this is the only legitimate or possible understanding.
I would like also, to ask – and I ask sincerely to understand – is the view that “ummiyun” of vs. 78 is used mockingly or ironically found in the classical sources? I ask sincerely to learn, I am not saying it is there and I am not saying it is not.
The fact that there are various interpretations (prompted by difficulties in the text) and scholars on both sides of the fence would appear to testify that the matter is not as one-dimensional as previously considered.
In conclusion, then, I maintain my position that textual corruption is not explicitly and unambiguously stated in the Quran. Please note my relatively “modest” position (at least when compared to absolutist claims). I did not state one could not make a case for it, but simply that it is not found explicitly and unambiguously in the Quran.
Hope you have a nice weekend
PS
To briefly reply to the two other of your explicit references:
5:12-16 does not explicitly talk of textual corruption but of hiding and forgetting. In addition to the verb hrf, on which cf. above.
6:91 talks about hiding scrolls, not explicitly mentioning that they altered the text itself.
@ Sam
Are you a Christian?
so this guy came again and says “ummi” doesnt mean unable to read and write and he says “uharrif” means “interpretational twisting”
evidence? atleast one would expext some dictionary evidence .
the ones who know the book didnt bother writing down their distortions because they left it to those who dont know the book.
“it explicitly indicates corruption by interpretation ”
“Corrupt interpretation” cannot mean DISTORTION
Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were
they understood it, distorted it and then copied their distortion. “Woah to those who write the book with their own hands”
it would make no sense if all they were doing was misinterpreting/misinterpretation cannot mean “uharrif”
“In Q 2:78 I take it to mean uneducated, uninformed and as the text says, “know not the scripture”. Thus, this group is contrasted to the group who is informed in Q 2:75. So what they write, is perhaps at best a limited text written on material at hand,
”
It says they write the book and then say it is from god. the stories about moses in quran from baqarah are not a match to the ones in the ot, so now we have further proof that the quranic author specifically albaqarah consider torah corrupt.
“So what they write, is perhaps at best a limited text written on material at hand,”
your evidence that quran understands “al kitaab” as a “perhaps…” bs you just invented?
They are WRITING THE BOOK and saying the book is from GOD
The book
they are passing of their “the book” as from God
quran said that the jews slandered mary and killed the prophets ,so why is it telling the jews this in muhummad pbuh time? Because it seems they r united in the crimes so there distortion of torah pre dates muhammad and it continues in his times .
Why do you ask?
I am interested to know. Are you?
Not really.
@ Sam
If you could please stop it with the “I’m just trying to understand” when you’re obviously a pretentious troll that would be fantastic. Thanks. (Oh and to pre-empt your “I’m not a troll I’m just trying, blah, blah, blah” people who are trying to learn, accept ALL literature of the opposing side and don’t make baseless accusations of forgery so they can keep trying to twist a text)
Anyways moving on:
1.Tabari and tafseer mentioning Illiterate as mocking
To begin Muslims are not bound by Tabari’s opinions. Even if he favored this verse did not refer to textual corruption he (like every other Muslim on planet Earth) believed it. However, Tabari IS of the opinion this ayah is referring to textual corruption, mentions several heavy hitters who mention it and as a bonus talks about it being sarcastic. I was originally going to translate it but since “you know Arabic” so well from your discussion on “fa” with Mr. Heathcliff I’ll leave it all untranslated for you so you can read the original text for yourself: From his tafseer of 2:76:
https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=76&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
And 2:79:
https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=79&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
2.Your opinion
No one cares for it nor was it asked. The meaning of the text has been explicitly stated by the people who were there and pretty much all Muslims scholarship agrees so pardon us for believing them over you.
3. Your Games with clear verses
Yep keep playing games with the obvious meaning of the text Sam. Up means down, left really means right, etc. Simple question: “What does it mean to “twist God’s words” and “Write a Scripture with your own hand”? This entire argument is silly and makes absolutely no sense.
(1) I wrote “Al Tabari did not consider 2:75 as referring to textual corruption”. In his commentary Al Tabari accepts the view of Ibn Ishaq, namely, that when Moses and the elders came down from the mountain some changed what God had told them “Moses said to the Israelites: God has commanded you to do so and so. This group whom God mentioned said, actually he said so and so, the opposite of what God told them. It is those God meant when He revealed this to his messenger…”
As for 2:78 I will admit that I am not sure what Al Tabari means and so I did not refer to it specifically. Al Tabari appears to say that “ummiyun” are their mothers’ child, in contrast to their fathers’ in as much as they can not write. Since he subsequently, goes on to talk about changing God’s words I do not know how to resolve this – so let me advise anyone to read the full commentary for themselves and make their own judgement. At any rate, Ibn Abbas, as quoted by AL Tabari, to this aya, did not consider this a reference to the people of the book, but to a different people.
Are you saying that the particle “fa” is not normally understood to refer to what immediately precedes it? Even if you take it here to function as a resumptive particle, no argument was made for that understanding.
(2) You asked that I deal directly with the verses you quoted, so I stated my opinion. Yes, I accept and respect that most Muslims are of the opposing view. But that is not the what we disagree on.
(3) Yes, they wrote with their own hands (cf. Al Tabari to this aya), we agree on that. The question is if what these “ummiyun” were able to write could corrupt a scriptural codex or scroll.
@ Sam
So long story short:
1. Tabari DID think it means textual corruption and not like the books are still good as you made it seem.
2. You, Sam, will try to latch onto anything you can despite the obvious meaning of a text because you never denied being a pretentious troll.
Glad we cleared that up.
Alright, Paul all yours.
“Are you saying that the particle “fa” is not normally understood to refer to what immediately precedes it? Even if you take it here to function as a resumptive particle, no argument was made for that understanding.”
the thing is when the attributes of the people who know and don’t know are highlighted, you twist the meaning of ummi and tie the “fa” to them. this means you are desperate.
its not only “ummi” but “wishful thinking”
“assuming”
“or do you say about ALLAH what you do not know”
this is what is highlighted about the “ummi” group.
but you want to tie the “fa” to them because you are desperate.
I too would like to know
“And among them are “illiterate” ones who do not know the Scripture EXCEPT FOR WISHFUL THINKING”
means in this magical word of ignoring the context of the sarcasm.
OK, I’ll bite for the absolutely last time. In my reading, the group of vs. 75 is contrasted with the group of vs. 78. One group understands, the other group does not. The irony is that both groups twist the words of God; one group explicitly in writing the other not specified, but in any case the focus on their “talk” in the next two ayats (76-77) may be seen as a contrast to the “writing” of vs. 79. Is that a legitimate or illegitimate reading? I’ll let the readers decide for themselves.
I still do not feel you have presented a cogent case that takes into account the complexities of this unit. What, on the reading you prefer is the difference between the group of vs. 75 and the group of vs. 79? It appears to me that what you are saying is, that the first group are expert scribes who understand the correct meaning of the written text and then alter it. The second group are also expert scribes who comprehend the correct meaning of the written text and then alter it. Except that this second group is called “ummiyin” (uneducated?) who know not the scripture, whereas in reality they know perfectly well what they are doing, gaining thereby. To me, the irony, of calling somebody who masters a profession to such a degree that he can mislead others, an “ummi who know not”, is not really obvious.
Be that as it may. You appear to consider the “ummiyun, who know not” of Q 2:78, as so obviously ironic that it hardly needs elucidation. Maybe so. But why, then, did Ibn Abbas and other scholars as per Al Tabari, put forward solutions different to the one you propose?
“t appears to me that what you are saying is, that the first group are expert scribes who understand the correct meaning of the written text and then alter it. The second group are also expert scribes who comprehend the correct meaning of the written text and then alter it. Except that this second group is called “ummiyin” (uneducated?) who know not the scripture, whereas in reality they know perfectly well what they are doing, gaining thereby. To me, the irony, of calling somebody who masters a profession to such a degree that he can mislead others, an “ummi who know not”, is not really obvious.”
WTF r u talking about ? who the f…. said anything about the second group being “expert scribes” GTFOH
show me some evidence that your “torah” existed in time of muhammad as u know it now
@ Sam
1. Why did Tabari put for a different interpretation?
Because…he’s a human? He may interpret differently or just be plain wrong, we don’t worship our scholars not really that complex. I can name dozens of scholars that have made mistakes or read things legitimately in a different way. As for Ibn Abbas(ra) he is just saying the general meaning of the word but even then there are times he is incorrect. One example off the top of my head I HIGHLY disagree with him Jesus(as) being replaced on the cross with someone else as the grammar doesn’t really favor it.
2. Twisting
Idk why you feel both can’t twist especially when taking into account Muhammad’s (saw) polemic with the Jews in Medina. The Rabbis were some of his major opponents so bearing this mind:
2:75. Now do you ˹really˺ hope that a people such as this will believe in you, when some of them used to hear God’s words and then change or twist it, even though they understood them?
Two ways to understand either Muhammad(saw) or the Muslims who are allies with the Jewish tribes. The later is more likely due to the plural usage and ahadith.
2:76. When they meet those who believe, they say: “We’ve believed!” But when they’re alone in secret, ˹they˺ say: “Are you telling them about what God has ˹revealed to us previously˺, so that they can make a case against you, with your Lord? Don’t you have any type of common sense or understanding?”
2:77. Do they not understand that God knows what they’re hiding and what they’re showing?
First case of sarcasm, the Jews tried a trick it failed God played off what they said to one another. No reason to think there won’t be more in the passage.
2:78. Among them as well are the ‘illiterate’ ones who don’t know the Scripture except for wishful thinking. They’re only making guesses and assuming.
So who are among the Jews who are “ummiyun” illiterate people who don’t know Scripture (i.e they don’t read so they make things up bs and say its in there) For example, I was debating a missionary on this blog and he claimed the Jews were only permitted to fight within the boundries of the Holy Land and never conquer surrounding territories. I then disproved this. In this case he wrote a law and claimed God had said this and showed his “illiteracy” of Scripture. He blindly copied what some pastor had told him. Another time, when we were discussing salvation with Christians one claimed that Jesus(as) transcended space and time saving eveybody on Earth. This is writi g your own religion.
2:79. May damnation be unleashed on those who write the Scripture with their own hands, then say: “This is from God,” in order to sell it for a worthless price. May damnation be on them for what their hands have written and may damnation be on them for what they’re earning.
Are text in question. Let’s see an example in the next passage of something the they invented in the Talmud.
2:80 They claim the Fire of Hell will never touch us or only for a few days
This is mentioned in the Talmud that one can only be in Hell for a 12 months. This is directly in their text ALL the Talmud is not bad as Islam agrees with things mentioned but God gives an example of something they changed.
To Stewjo004
Thank you for your reply. Since I sense a more conciliatory tone, in your previous post I allow myself a final reply to you and to Mr. Heathcliff to clarify a few points,that I perhaps failed communicate clearly.
I never suggested – and completely agree with you – that one should not worship scholars, regardless of stripe. I also completely agree with your point that scholars can differ on legitimate interpretations or be plain wrong. The reason I mention Al Tabari is to argue that differences in interpretation came from those who were intimately familiar with the text and were not hostile to it, such as many missionaries are.
An even more fundamental point is identifying textual and exegetical difficulties. The case here being the problem of the “ummiyun” writing something. It appears to me, that this is the difficulty, Ibn Abbas is trying to address with his interpretation. He appears to understand that the “fa” in vs. 79 does refer to the the group of vs. 78. Thus, he proposes that “ummiyun” means here, something else than being illiterate. That is what “western” scholars have proposed (they propose it to mean uneducated, unlearned) and it is also reflected in a translation by a Muslim scholar such as that of Abdel Haleem, who translates “ummiyun “as “uneducated”. To be clear, I am not suggesting Prof. Abdel Haleem agrees with my understanding of textual corruption, but simply that he appears to take the “fa” of vs. 79 to refer to the “ummiyun” of vs. 78. If Ibn Abbas and Abdel Haleem did take the “fa” to refer to the group of vs. 75 (or to someone else altogether), they would presumably have proposed a different interpretation.
You write that: “Idk why you feel both can’t twist…”. I did mention the irony that both groups twist the words of God. I do argue, however, that vs. 79 does not refer to the group of vs. 75 but to the group of vs. 78.
With regard to the historical interrelationship between various religious groups in Medina I do not know. With regard to your experience with missionaries, I am not really a fan of missionaries or mission even when done in a sincere and respectful way.
To Mr. Heathcliff
I appreciate that you ask for evidence that “ummiyun” means here something else than illiterate and for the root hrf. Please see my reply to Stewjo004 above. Sin reverse order.
Hrf as a verbal form appears four times in the Quran (Q 2:75; 4:46; 5:13; 5:41, but see participle in 8:16) and once as a noun in Q 22:11. The basic meaning appears to be to slant, to turn with other meanings such as edge (i.e., Q 22:11, cf. the root in Lane’s Arabic Lexicon), and so taken as to “tamper with”. I do not understand to, in and of itself, mean corrupting a text. Especially since the Quran twice explicitly connects it with twisting of words (Q 4:46 and 5:41) and the other two times does not specify the nature of corruption. Thus, as I have twice quoted the opinion of modern scholars, to the effect, the Quran is not explicit about how and when corruption was perpetrated. It is for these reasons, I argued, that the classical commentators of Islam distinguished between tahrif lafzi (distortion of the text) and tahrif manawi (distortion of the meaning or “interpretation”). The noun tahrif itself does not appear in the Quran itself.
Regarding “ummi” please see my reply to Stewj004. In addition I refer you to the article of Prof. Sebastian Günther: “Muhammad, the Illiterate Prophet: An Islamic Creed in the Qur’an and Qur’anic Exegesis”, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2002), pp. 1-26. In my opinion, this is a helpful discussion on how this word has been understood by both traditional Islamic scholars as well as modern scholars.
You seem to take the “fa” of vs. 78 to refer back to the group in vs. 75. I have here, and in earlier posts, clarified why and how I consider it to refer to vs. 79 as well as how that is supported contextually, structurally, philologically and cited scholars who understand it similarly (only that the “fa” refers to the group in vs. 78 – not the textual corruption part).
I still feel you have not responded to my question, namely if vs. 79 refers to the group of vs. 75 (and excluding the one in vs. 78) why was it not placed prior to vs. 78? As it stands now, those who are able to and those who are unable to corrupt a scriptural scroll or codex are put in the same boat. The distance in ayats and the shift of focus to the other group, in addition to the considerations I have pointed out above, can easily lead to a different understanding than yours. This is evidenced not only by “western” scholarship but by Muslim scholarship well, as evidenced by Ibn Abbas and Prof. Abdel Haleem (and one could add many others). It would appear to me, then, at the very least, that taking the” fa” as referring back to the group of vs. 78 is a legitimate interpretation.
I hope you could clarify your position.
Sorry a small correction, dint quite get all verse nos. correct:
The sentence: ”You seem to take the “fa” of vs. 78 to refer back to the group in vs. 75 I have here, and in earlier posts, clarified why and how I consider it to refer to vs. 79….” Should read “You seem to take the “fa” of vs. 79 to refer back to the group in vs. 75 I have here, and in earlier posts, clarified why and how I consider it to refer to vs. 78”.
Sam, if the author of the Quran believed the Bible was uncorrupted why does he never textually engage it?
Hi Kamak
Do you mean that there is no direct quote of the Bible, as we have it in, the Quran?
There are no indirect quotations either. So the question remains, if the author of the Quran thinks the Bible is uncorrupt why does he never quote it?
I can offer my thoughts; but what is an indirect quotation?
The very earliest Muslim view is clear. Citing a Quranic passage:
Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?”
‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbaas said, “O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you.”
Ibn ‘Abbaas was a senior companion of Muhammad upon who be peace, and is a most trustworthy interpreter of the Qur’an.