LV.—TAHRI′F, OR THE ALLEGED CORRUPTION OF THE SACRED BOOKS BY THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS.
Tahri′f is the word used by Muhammadan writers to express the corruption of the sacred Scriptures of the Jews and Christians, as asserted in the Qurán.
Imám Fakhar-ud-dín Rází, in his commentary, explains "Tahríf" to mean, to change, alter, or turn aside anything from the truth. Muslim divines say there are two kinds of Tahríf, namely, Tahríf-i-Mʾanawí, a corruption of the meaning; and Tahríf-i-Lafzí, a corruption of the words.
Muhammadan controversialists, when they become acquainted with the nature of the contents of our sacred books, and of the impossibility of reconciling the contents of the Qurán with those of the sacred Scriptures, charge the Christians with the Tahríf-i-Lafzí. They say the Christians have expunged the word Ahmad from the prophecies, and have inserted the expression "Son of God," and the story of the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of our blessed Lord. This view, however, is not the one held by the most celebrated of the Muslim commentators.
Imám Muhammad Ismaíl Bokhárí,[1] records that Ibn ʿAbbás said that "the word Tahríf (corruption) signifies to change a thing from its original nature; and that there is no man who could corrupt a single word of what proceeded from God, so that the Jews and Christians could corrupt only by misrepresenting the meaning of the words of God."
Ibn-i-Mazar and Ibn Abi Hátim state, in the commentary known as the Tafsír Durr-i-Mansúr, that they have it on the authority of Ibn-i-Munía, that the Taurát (i. e. the books of Moses), and the Injíl (i. e. the Gospels), are in the same state of purity in which they were sent down from heaven, and that no alterations had been made in them, but that the Jews were wont to deceive the people by unsound arguments, and by wresting the sense of Scripture.
Sháh Walí Ullah, in his commentary, the Fauz-ul-Kabír, and also Ibn ʾAbbás, support the same view.
This appears to be the correct interpretation of the various verses of the Qurán charging the Jews with having corrupted the meaning of the sacred Scriptures.
For example, Surat-i-A′l-i-Imrám (iii.), 78: "There are certainly some of them who read the Scriptures perversely, that ye may think what they read to be really in the Scriptures, yet it is not in the Scriptures; and they say this is from God, but it is not from God; and they speak that which is false concerning God against their own knowledge."
Imám Fakhar-ud-dín, in his commentary on this verse, and many others of the same character which occur in the Qurán, says it refers to a Tahríf-i-Mʾanawí, and that it does not mean that the Jews altered the text, but merely that they made alterations in the course of reading.
But whilst all the old commentators, who most probaby had never seen a copy of the sacred Books of the Jews and Christians, only charge us with a Tahríf-i-Mʾanawí, all modern controversialists amongst the Muhammadans contend for a Tahríf-i-Lafzí, as being the only solution of the difficulty.
In dealing with such opponents, the Christian divine will avail himself of the following arguments:—
1. The Qurán does not charge the Jews and Christians with corrupting the text of their sacred books; and all the learned Muslim commentators admit that such is not the case.
2. The Qurán asserts that the Holy Scriptures of the Jews and Christians existed in the days of Muhammad, who invariably speaks of them with reverence and respect.
3. There now exist manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments of an earlier date than that of Muhammad (A.D. 610–632).
4. There are versions of the Old and New Testament now extant, which existed before Muhammad ; for example, the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac, the Coptic, and the Armenian versions.
5. The Hexapla, or Octapla of Origen, which dates four centuries before Muhammad, gives various versions of the Old Testament Scriptures in parallel columns.
6. The Syrian Christians of St. Thomas,[2] of Malabar and Travancore, in the south of India, who were separated from the western world for centuries, possess the same Scriptures.
7. In the works of Justin Martyr, who lived from A.D. 103 to 167, there are numerous quotations from our sacred books, which prove that they were exactly the same as those we have now. The same may be said of other early Christian writers.
Muhammadan controversialists of the present day urge that the numerous readings which exist in the Christian books are a proof that they have been corrupted. But these do not affect, in the least, the main points at issue between the Christian and the Muslim. The Divine Sonship of Christ, the Fatherhood of God, the Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, and the Atonement, are all clearly stated in almost every book of the New Testament, whilst they are rejected by the Qurán.
The most plausible of modern objections urged by Muslim divines is, that the Christians have lost the Injíl which was sent down from heaven to Jesus; and that the New Testament contains merely the Hadís, or Sunna—the traditions handed down by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and others. It is, of course, a mere assertion, unsupported by any proof; but it appears to be a line of argument which commends itself to Sayyid Ahmad Khan, C.S.I.,[3] and also to Ameer ʾAlí Maulaví, M.A., LL.B.[4] The latter professes to be a Muhammadan rationalist; but as Islám is a system of the most positive dogma, it does not admit either of rationalism, or "free thought." Sayyid Ahmad and Ameer ʾAlí no more represent the Muhammadanism of the Qurán and the Traditions, than the opinions of Mr. Voysey represent the teaching of orthodox Christianity.
"Islámism is in itself stationary, and was framed thus to remain; sterile, like its God, lifeless like its first principle in all that constitutes life—for life is love, participation, and progress, and of these the Coranic deity has none. It justly repudiates all change, all development. To borrow the forcible words of Lord Houghton, the written book is there the dead man's hand, stiff and motionless; whatever savours of vitality is by that alone convicted of heresy and defection."[5]
- ↑ Vide Hadís-i-Sahíh-Bokhárí, edition printed at the Matbaʾ Ahmadi Meerut, A.H. 1284 (A.D. 1867), p. 1127, line 7.
- ↑ That Christians existed in India at a very early period is plain from the fact that a Bishop of India signed his name at the Council of Nice, A.D. 325.
- ↑ Vide The Muhammadan Commentaries on the Holy Bible, Part I., by Syud Ahmad Khan, C.S.I. Ghazeepore, 1862.
- ↑ Vide The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, by Syud Ameer Ali Moulvie, M.A., LL.B., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. London, 1873.
- ↑ Palgrave's Arabia, vol. i. p. 372.