An examination of Jeremiah 8:8

  Ibn Anwar

Qur’an 5:44, Jeremiah 8:8, the scribes and the corrupted Torah

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

“The Bible has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.” – Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth

One of the brothers on my Facebook friends list requested that I clarify Jeremiah 8:8 for him and so the following is a an exposition on the text of Jeremiah 8:8. My interest in the verse piqued when I saw Shabir Ally (now Dr. Shabir Ally) referring to the text in a debate that he had with the irascible Christian missionary Sam Shamoun some 16 years ago. In the debate, during the rebuttal period, Dr. Shabir laments against Shamoun’s accusation against him that he was using an outrageous commentary of Jeremiah 8:8 that he took out of his hat as how a charlatan or a magician might take a rabbit out of his top hat. Dr. Shabir Ally points out, in the rebuttal period, that the interpretation that he offered was not his, but rather, the words and scholarly testimony that are found in the preface of ‘The Bible in Living English’. Indeed, the comments come from scholar and Bible translator Steven Byngton in his book ‘The Bible in Living English’:

“Sometimes even intentional changes were made. Jeremiah 8:8 says that in Jeremiah’s time the commonly accepted copies of the law of Moses were so incorrect as to contain substantial falsehoods: Jeremiah’s words seem to mean that the false matter had been willfully put in; and it would be hard to prove that our copies of the law are not made from the ones that were commonly accepted in Jeremiah’s time.” [1]

In Shamoun’s own rebuttal period, he dismisses Dr. Shabir’s reference as valueless as it comes from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Never mind the genetic fallacy of such an uncouth approach, we shall see that the text and immediate context of Jeremiah 8:8 prove Dr. Shabir’s point and that Byngton’s view is not one that is solitary among Christian Biblical scholars. Some years later, James White came to the scene and wrote a brief attempt at a rebuttal to Dr. Shabir’s use of Jeremiah 8:8. In White’s article, he reasons that, “The context confirms this, for the very next verse says the wise men “have rejected the word of Yahweh,” not that they have somehow managed to corrupt and destroy it. It must exist and be knowable for them to reject it.” [2] Little does White understand, that when someone alters, changes or corrupts any particular message, then by definition he has rejected it. For example, if you send a message to me by mail, then I open it and deliberately make changes and alterations to the original text, I have by doing so rejected the message that I was given. The Christian theologian Paul R. House seems to grasp this point perfectly, “Judah has refused to return to the Lord despite the fact that repentance would be a normal response to their covenant obligations (8:4-7). Why? Because scribes, who were entrusted with transcribing the law, alter it to fit their beliefs (8:8)…Here the law and prophets come very close indeed, for the prophet must preach the law that has been neglected, altered and rejected.” [3]

There is no ambiguity in House’s testimony. Judah was reticent to return to the Lord, because the scribes, whose responsibility was to transcribe and preserve the law, “altered it to fit their beliefs.” And this lends much credence to the claim of the Qur’an:

“It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah’s will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for them was entrusted the protection of Allah’s book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my ayaat (verses or signs) for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.” (Surah al-Ma’idah, chapter 5, verse 44)

And according to Mufti Shafi’ Uthmani, in his luminous ‘tafsir’ (commentary) ‘Ma’riful Qur’an’, he comments, “They (the scribes) acted crookedly when they started changing its injunctions…” [4]

Unlike the Qur’an, which has God’s stamp of assurance that He Himself shall see to it that the message of the Qur’an is perfectly preserved (15:9), the Torah was entrusted upon the ‘al-rabbaniyyoon wal ahbar’ (the rabbis and the keepers of the Law), but they failed in their dispensation and altered the message therein “to fit their beliefs” as House states above.

Make no mistakes, the scribes were charged with the responsibility of preserving the texts of scripture and transcribing them for others to read. They certainly had the ability and means to change, alter and corrupt what they wrote if they so desired and indeed they did.

“Cheifly, in both O.T. and N.T., a professional student and interpreter of the law of Moses. The scribes were at first priests who made copies of the law. They came to be of importance during the exile, when they were probably responsible for the collecting and copying of the writings that resulted in many of the O.T. books.“ [5]

Biblical scholar Barbara Smith informs us that the primary function of a scribe was to make “copies of the law” and they were responsible for “collecting and copying” the writings that later became the Old Testament books, which of course include the book of Jeremiah.

Many followers of the New King James Version, which account for more than 80 million evangelical Christians in America, don’t see the problem with Jeremiah 8:8, because their chosen translation blurs the meaning by using rather archaic expressions like “vain” instead of “lie” or “corrupted.”

“How do ye say, We are wise, and the Law(Torah) of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he[it]; the pen of the scribes is in vain.” (King James Version, Jeremiah 8:8 )

The above rendering of Jeremiah 8:8 is in what might as well be “ancient English” and I am rather certain that quite a few are fumbling as to what exactly is meant by the verse when it says “the pen of the scribes is in vain.” Well, consider the following renderings of Jeremiah 8:8 into straightforward modern English that will clear the fog away:

“`How can you say, “We are wise because we have the law(Torah) of the Lord,” when your teachers have twisted it so badly?” (New Living Translation, Jeremiah 8:8 )

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law(Torah) of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. “ (Revised Standard Version, Jeremiah 8:8 )

“How can you claim, ‘We are wise; the law(Torah) of the LORD is with us? In fact, the lying pen of scribes has produced falsehood.” (Holman Christian Standard Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)

I have added the word Torah in brackets to inform the readers that the word law there is in reference to the Torah i.e. the first five books of the Bible or the so called “books of Moses” and not just any law. The Hebrew word there is תורה or transliterated as Torah.

The Hebrew text reads:

איכה תאמרו חכמים אנחנו ותורת יהוה אתנו אכן הנה לשקר עשה עט שקר ספרים

“eikha tomru khakhamim anakhnu ve Torah adonai itanu akhen hine lasheker asa et sheker sofrim”

The keywords above are “Torah”, “sheker”, “et” and “sofrim”. In a nutshell, the “sofrim” (scribes) maliciously used their “et” (pen) to “sheker”(alter or corrupt) the “Torah”(the Law or word of God) and changed it into a “sheker” (corruption or a lie). So, in the verse given, two important points may be adduced:

1. The Torah has been tampered with.

2. The scribes were responsible for this.

And yes, Jesus himself was vehemently against this elite group of falsifying scholars called the scribes. Let us consider Jesus’ relationship with this magnificent group of people:

In Matthew chapter 23 alone Jesus curses the scribes saying “Woe be to you” no less than six times and called them hypocrites eight times over, which is a record in a single chapter in the whole Bible!

Are the scribes, the ones responsible for the so called preservation of the Old Testament trustworthy? How can they be trusted when they were the ones who plotted to kill Jesus and teated him in such vile ways?

“they(the scribes and pharisees) spat in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands.”

“And they that had laid hold on Jesus Christ led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. Now the chief priests, and the elders and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.” (Matthew 26:57)

Like in Jeremiah 8:8, here we also see evidence of the scribes lying or making false witness. In Jeremiah 8:8 they lied upon the Torah and in the above they lied upon Jesus. Are they to be trusted?

To list every single instance of Jesus reproaching the scribes in this article would be a most tedious task and we do not have the luxury of time nor strength to do that. It is suffice to say that Jesus condemns the scribes in more than 60 verses! In Matthew chapter 23 mentioned earlier, the heading reads, “Jesus Denounces the Scribes n the Pharisees”. You may refer to Mark 12:38 to 40, Luke 20:45-47 etc. for more on Jesus against the scribes.

Commenting on Jeremiah 8:8, Reverend David Bauscher writes:

“A very egregious example of probable deliberate alteration can be found in the Massoretic Hebrew of Jeremiah.” [6] Rebuking them further, he writes, “To indict one group is to indict all, the Scribes, Prophets and the Priests. What is the major crime of the Scribes? “the false pen of the scribes has turned it into falsehood.” What is “it”? The previous sentence gives the answer: “the law of Jehovah”. The law of Jehovah is the written word of God. The Scribes perverted the written scriptures which they were entrusted to copy and preserve without error. There was a way to do that, according to the rules of the school of the Sopherim, in which every Scribe was carefully trained.” [7]

Bauscher sees Jeremiah 8:8 as a textual testimony of the unreliability of the scribes as they used the skills that they honed while training for the profession to finally corrupt and “pervert the written scriptures.”

The Biblical scholar Hector Avalos shares Bauscher’s sentiments against the scribes of Jeremiah 8:8:

“Yet some biblical authors were aware that scribes could alter biblical texts for improper motives. In Jeremiah 8:8, we find this fascinating complaint: “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us…” [8]

Lo and behold, the English Standard Version Study Bible (Winner of the prestigious Christian Book Award) agrees with Bauscher and Avalos as well:

“JEREMIAH – NOTE ON 8:8 The Judeans possess God’s law, just as they possess the temple, But their scribes, the professional copiers and teachers of the Scriptures, have altered God’s word to fit their own desires. Thus, they have made it into a lie. JEREMIAH – NOTE ON 8:9 These so-called wise men will be put to shame (2:26; 6:15) because of their changing of God’s word. Rejecting God’s word proves they are really unwise.” [9]
According to the interpretation by the ESV on Jeremiah 8:8, the ‘sofrim’ or the scribes reject the Torah, because they have purposefully altered and changed the scriptures, the word of God.

Yet another Christian Biblical scholar (who isn’t of the JW stripe) Dr. James Smith comments on Jeremiah 8:8:

“Among the wise men, the scribes were singled out for special comment. The scribes were men who could write. The pen (‘et) was probably made from a reed. The scribes in Jeremiah’s day were as corrupt as the priests and the prophets. Somehow through their writings they were attempting to nullify the written word of God. Perhaps they were publishing the false teaching of the prophets and priests… Some have proposed that these scribes were even guilty of altering the very text of the word of God. Whatever they were doing these perverse scribes were distorting the truth.” [10]

In Smith’s view, which he labels as “a Christian interpretation”, these “perverted scribes” perverted and distorted the truth by substituting the word of God, the scriptures with their own perverse and error-ridden writings and teachings.

David Carr, Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew and Bible Union Theological Seminary shares Smith’s view in his commentary on Jeremiah 8:8.

“…the vigorous attack on those who claim to be “wise” and that the “Torah is with [them]” when the Torah has been corrupted by the “lying pen of the scribes” (t sheqer sopherim, Jer. 8:8…In addition, both Isaiah and Jeremiah traditions feature broad indictments of groups using writing to oppress the poor (Isa 10:1-2) or corrupt the Torah of God (Jer 8:8).” [11]

Commenting on Jeremiah 8:8, Biblical scholar and historian Stuart Weeks writes:

“In Jer. 88f. the prophet asks:
How is it that you say, ‘Wise are we, and torah of Yahweh is with us’? yet, behold, into falsehood has the false pen of the scribes turn it into. Wise men will be shamed, shattered, and taken; behold, they reject the word of Yahweh, and what wisdom is there in them?”

The prophet’s hearers, then, are claiming to be wise and to possess the torah of Yahweh; the prophet protests that this torah has been corrupted by the scribes, and prophesies that those who call themselves wise will be destroyed, since they are in fact rejecting the divine word, and their wisdom is therefore unreal.” [12]

Weeks clarifies above that because the scribes have corrupted the Torah, they have inadvertently rejected the divine word. He continues in his indictment of the scribes as those that have changed, altered, corrupted and tampered with the Torah:

“general associations of wisdom with torah are found in Pss. 19. 8 (ET 7); 119, but the most probable reference is to the Deuteronomic claim in Deut. 4. 6, that the possession of the Law makes Israel a ‘wise’ nation. Deut. 4 not only expresses the idea of wisdom through law, but prohibits tampering with this law, the crime of which the scribes are here accused (cf. Jer. 5. 31). [13]

Although the scribes were forbidden from tampering with the words of scripture, they did it anyway and it is for this reason that they are described as having rejected God’s word which ensured their destruction.

In sum, from the foregoing discussion, we can safely and securely say that Dr. Shabir Ally’s position that he laid against Shamoun’s deceptive tactics has been thoroughly vindicated – the source that Dr. Shabir uses is in and of itself from a scholar, even if he so happens to be affiliated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and above all else, we have seen a great number of Christian Biblical scholars and academics lending their clear support to Byngton’s proposition. And finally, we should make no mistake that the corruption and perversion of God’s word is akin to a rejection of it.

Addendum:

The following comes from Christian evangelist Bill Bright who was the founder of the world’s largest Christian ministry, Campus Crusade for Christ, which is a household name in America and in many parts of the world. Its presence is seen in almost every major American university. Here’s what he has to say about Jeremiah 8:8.

“8:8 Literally translated, ‘The lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.” Scribes (sometimes translated “secretaries”) were not responsible to interpret or teach the ;aw until postexilic times (Ezra 7:11). In Jeremiah’s day, scribes primarily wrote and transcribed documents (Jeremiah 36:32). Teaching was the work of priests (Deuteronomy 33:10) and was done orally. Therefore, this verse could be understood to mean that the scribes had purposefully made inaccurate copies of the scrolls containing God’s law. Because the people were taught from these corrupted scrolls, they believed lies rather than truth.” [14]

According to Bright, the ‘sofrim’ did not teach or interpret the Law in the time of Moses and so that means the excuse given by Christian apologists that they didn’t actually change the Torah but simply wrongly interpreted it becomes untenable. Since this interpretation is out of the question, the only remaining feasible understanding that the text plainly conveys is that the scribes did in fact alter, change and corrupt the Torah and the people were then taught from these perverted copies.

Notes:

[1] Byngton, S. J. (1972). The Bible in Living English. Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. p. 9

[2] White, James. “Jeremiah 8:8: Abused and Misused.” N.p., 27 Nov. 2005. Web.

[3] House, P. R. (1998). Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. p. 307

[4] Shafi’ Uthmani (n.d.). Ma’riful Qur’an (Muhammad Hasan Askari & Muhammad Shamim (Trans.). pp. 178-179; See also Mawlana Daryabadi: “(the Rabbis) had accepted that duty gladly; had cheerfully subjected themselves ‘to the yoke of Torah,'” (Abdul Majid Daryabadi (1991). Tafsir-ul-Qur’an: Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’an. Karachi, Pakistan: Darul-Ishaat. p. 431

[5] Smith, B. (1965). Young People’s Bible Dictionary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

[6] Bauscher, D. (2015). The Aramaic-English Interlinear Peshitta Old Testament (The Major Prophets). Australia: Lulu Publishing. p. 8

[7] Ibid. p. 9

[8] Avalos, H. (2007). The End of Biblical Studies. Michigan: Prometheus Books. p. 67

[9] C. John Collins, Thomas R. Schreiner, Lane T. Dennis et al. (Eds.). (2008). ESV Study Bible. Crossway.

[10] Smith, J. E. (1972). Jeremiah: A Christian Interpretation. College Press. p. 136

[11] Carr, D. M. (2005). Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 118

[12] Weeks, S. (1994). Early Israelite Wisdom: Oxford Theological Monographs. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 85-86

[13] Ibid. p. 86

[14] Bright, B. (2007). The Discover God Study Bible NLT. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers.

Islam Critique's dilemma

Islam Critiqued has gained a fascination for the Talmud (oral tradition). He tries to use his limited understanding by deceiving his Patreon followers that he found something troubling for Muslims e.g. the Quran copied from the oral tradition, Talmud/Mishna/ Legend of the Jews etc…

He claims since the oral tradition, (Talmud/Mishna/ Legend of the Jews) came before the Quran and a lot of its contents are found withing the Quranic stories then the Quran must have borrowed its stories and elaborated them? This is one absurd claim which carries no ounce of truth nor does it help Christians as we will see later In Shaa Allah.

Let's start by citing what the Quran says about the events which happened in the past.

These are some stories from the past that we reveal to you. Neither you, nor your people knew them before this. So be patient. The future belongs to the pious. (Surah 11:49)

In their stories is a lesson for those who possess intelligence. This is not a fabricated tale, but a confirmation of what came before it, and a detailed explanation of all things, and guidance, and mercy for people who believe. (Surah 12:111)

   

We relate to you their story in truth. They were youths who believed in their Lord, and We increased them in guidance. (Surah 18:13)

 He sent down to you the Book with the Truth, confirming what came before it; and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel. (Surah 3:3)

As you can read the Quran is very clear in informing us that the stories which are being mentioned were already in circulation however, the Quran is telling the us the "true" events on what really happened.

The Quran is confirming what came before it. Many stories were circulating from the Jews. The Jews added their own twist to those stories. The Quran tells us the true events to what happened.  If the stories of Prophets were being passed down by oral traditions and twisted how could you tell what is true and what is false?

Remember the same stories found in the "Torah" are also oral traditions written down by Jewish rabbis.  The events took place first then decades or centuries later they were written down.  E.g. the Gilgamesh speaks of the flood of Noah.  The "Torah" you have also speaks of the same flood? Let's assume Moses was the author of Genesis, are you saying Moses wrote 2600 later the story of Noah and it was unknown to other people? How do you explain the Gilgamesh?

What about the hammurabi code which predates the "Torah". The hammurabi code mirrors many laws of the "Torah". So, the question is, what makes you say the oral tradition did not have some truth in what they said? Bear in mind the same bible you claim to defend stems from the same form oral tradition.  Luke is a prime example to this. Luke 1:1 states "eyewitnesses passed down the information which Luke is using. This is the oral tradition.  It's highly possible the Jews had accurate information about events of the past which gradually was fading by the word of mouth or deliberate changes were made. This kind of stuff happens with the bible even now. It's easy to make an allegation but to prove it is difficult. You have no evidence at all from the 7th century that the Quran copied and previous information. We have evidence from ancient text Proverbs plagiarised from Egyptian instruction of Amenemope. Isaiah plagiarised from Yasna (sacred text of the Zoroastrians) even Jesus plagiarised from Bhudda.

If Islam Critique believe stories or legends which pre=date a particular revealed or written text makes it more authentic then we have a surprise for him.

Christians throughout the world unanimously agree Jesus was crucified on the cross which killed him. The source they use to verify this "historical event" is the New Testament which they believe accurately documented this event.  Here’s were Islam Critique disqualifies the authenticity of his bible.

According to Islam critique any ancient document which pre-dates scriptures but be accepted as giving sound information. The earliest manuscripts which speak of the crucifixion of Jesus come from the 3rd century. We have nothing earlier which mentioned the crucifixion narratives.

We have the Babylonian Talmudic documents which stemming from the 2nd century predating the gospel narratives which speak of Jesus.

BELOW WE DEMONSTRATE HOW THE GOSPELS TOOK INFORMTION FROM EARLIER SOURCES I.E. TALMUD AND CHANGE IT TO MAKE JESUS LOOK GOOD

Jesus was stoned and then "hanged" (Talmud Sanhedrin 43a-45b)

Jesus was burned after he was lowered into dung to his armpits with his mouth forced open and molten lead was poured in, burning his internal organs. (Talmud Sanhedrin 52a)

Jesus was strangled after being lowered into the dung (Talmud Sanhedrin 56a, 106b)

Jesus is in Hell where his punishment is boiling in hot semen. (Talmud Gittin 57A)

Jesus committed bestiality, corrupted the people, and is turned into Hell. (Talmud Sanhedrin 105a)

Jesus limped on one foot, was blind in one eye, practiced enhancement by way of membrum, committed bestiality with an ass, and was a fool who did not know his beast's mind. (Talmud Sanhedrin. 105a, 105b)

Jesus attempted to seduce a woman, was excommunicated by a Rabbi, and then worshipped a brick. He was a seducer of Israel and practiced magic. (Talmud Sanhedrin 107b)

Using Islam Critique's criteria on authenticating earlier traditions put his gospels in a serious dilemma. Let's go through a few on them

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus was stoned and then hanged." The gospels of Islam Critique show no sign of this Jewish practice of stoning sanction by the Torah instead says he was beaten then hanged.

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus was burned, lowered in dung and forced to open his mouth so lead can be poured." The gospels of Islam Critique clearly didn't mention this punishment.

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus was strangled then lowered in dung." Islam Critique's gospels makes no mention of Jesus being strangled?

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus is in hell boiling in hot semen" Islam Critique's gospels tell us Jesus was in paradise not hell?

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus committed bestiality" Islam Critique's gospels don't mention Jesus committed bestiality however, does state we was left alone with the beast to be tempted.

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus limped on one foot, was blind in one eye, practiced enhancement" Islam Critique's gospels doesn't make mention of such features or practices?

Do you see the dilemma Islam Critique put his bible into? The earliest documents speak of a severe punishment inflicted on Jesus. The gospels took that information, but added their own personal censored version dismissing what the earliest traditions said.

Islam Critique should use all the early documented tradition which pre-date his gospels and embrace them.  Why did the gospels take Jesus's trial and punishment for the Talmud and change it?

Wait we have more. Since Islam Critique loves using the Talmud to prove it early attestation as authenticity. What does he make out of the following information from the Talmud?

1)

This is a reference to the passage from the Talmud that: “Adam was created alone to teach you that whoever takes a human life is considered by the Bible to have destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a human life is considered by the Bible as if he preserved an entire world (Sanhedrin 4.5).

Take attention to the second line from the saying 

"that whoever takes a human life is considered by the Bible to have destroyed an entire world"

it says "whoever takes a human life of a Israeli is considered BY THE BIBLE as destroying the entire world" 

Can Islam Critique show us from his "inerrant, preserved Bible", such saying? Where can we find this quote from the Bible which says "killing one Israeli is like killing the whole world?"

2)

The Gemara asks: Why does the verse say: And he said? It should say: And I said. Why does the verse say: And you spared? It should say: And I spared.Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: David said to Saul: By Torah law, you should be killed, as you are a pursuer who seeks to kill me, and the Torah says: If one comes to kill you, kill him first. But it was the modesty that you displayed that spared you. (Talmud Berakhot Daf 62b:8)

Christians shouldn't have a problem showing us where in the Torah it say’s “If one comes to kill you, kill him first” Unless the Jews were reading a different Torah.

If Islam Critiqued cannot show us from his bible where those saying are then we conclude the Jews he relies on confirmed his book is no more than garbage

3)

Show us where this saying can be found word for word in the Torah? If you can't then admit the ancient Jews were reading a different "Torah"

Similarly the Torah says, "Through the reishis Hashem created [the heavens and the earth]," and reishis means Torah, as in "Hashem made me [the Torah] the beginning (reishis) of His way". (Midrash Bereishit Rabbah Chapter 1

Islam Critiqued's bogus argument only backfired on him

Rabbi Abrahamson the golden calf

Q. Salamaleikum Rabbi, according to Quran Aaron did not make golden claf and not lead people astray. But Torah talks about Aaron's role in this sin. What do you think about this issue?

A. Wa aleikum salaam wa rahmatullah.

The Talmud teaches "Whoever says that the Prophets sinned is mistaken" (Shabbat 56a). In the case of the Prophet Aaron (pbuh) it is never said that he actually fashioned the idol. The English translation is not precise, in the Hebrew there is a break between "tied it up in a cloth" and "made it into a molten calf". The written Torah reads "He [Aaron] took [the gold] from their hand[s], tied it up in a cloth, and [someone else, i.e., sorcerers] made it into a molten calf. THEY said: "These are gods, O Israel, who have brought you up from the land of Egypt!" The word "molten calf" is related to the "they" in "they said: 'This is thy god, O Israel". Because "they" exclude themselves from Israel, it cannot be referring to the Prophet Aaron (pbuh) or the Children of Israel.

Instead it refers to the non-Jewish Erev Rav "mix multitudes" that came out of Egypt with the Children of Israel (see 12:38). In the Qur'an these people are given the same Samiri (Samaritans) which is another name for the intermarried mixed nation who attached itself to Israel, but was not part of Israel.

A Midrash is brought by Rashi that explains that the whole problem was that Moses (pbuh) said he would be gone for 40 days. The Children of Israel has miscalculated and expected Moses (pbuh) to return a day earlier. When Moses (pbuh) did not return according to their calculation, they people began to panic. They had just come from Egypt and were immersed in idolatry, so the Erev Rav (mix multitude) found it easy to convince the people to ask for an idol to replace Moses (pbuh). They did not intend for the idol to be in place of God, but rather it was shirk - which is also strictly forbidden - to represent their understanding of God in a way they could see. The calf had been significant in their salvation of the plague of the firstborn, so they choose that symbol.

Aaron's (pbuh) nephew, the Prophet Hur (pbuh) tried to rebuke them, but they killed him. Aaron's (pbuh) recognized a step by step regression in the people's rational faculty as they became under the grip of this overwhelming panic. He observed and concluded that "it would be better if the Israelites transgression was ascribed to him rather than to them" meaning that if they sinned and Moses (pbuh) returned, their grief might be so great and their faith so weak, that they would never be able to repent. He also concluded that if they built the alter on their own, it would be finished immediately. He therefore undertook its construction hoping to tarry in his work, in order to delay them one day until Moses (pbuh) arrived.

After the people wanted to kill him, Aaron (pbuh) agreed to begin the work, but only with the intention to delay them. He specifically asked for the jewelry from the wives and children, even though the Torah clearly says in the following verses that the men had gold as well, because he hoped that this would take more time to gather. After the gold calf sprang out of the oven, Aaron (pbuh) instisted that an altar be made, and that he would fashioned an altar himself, not letting anyone assist him in the work. He proclaimed the "feast" would only occur the next day, giving Moses (pbuh) time to arrive.

At each case, Aaron's (pbuh) plans did not work out as he expected. The gold was gathered quickly. And when Aaron (pbuh) through the gold into the oven, the Erev Rav invoked their "magic" that they had learned in Egypt. They threw dust into the oven (also brought by the Islamic commentator al-Suddi) such that demons worked mischief and a golden calf sprang out of the oven. Aaron (pbuh) was not expecting this, but Aaron (pbuh) recognized it was a test from God and called upon them not to fail the test. He tried to delay them from worshiping the calf by telling them to wait for an altar and "a feast". Thus Aaron (pbuh) did not want to make an idol (chas veshalom) nor did he actually create it.

Yet the Torah does find some fault (but not sin) with Aaron (pbuh). Many of the Children of Israel did not agree with to the idea of a Golden Calf, and fighting among the children of Israel began. The Levites began killing their fellow Jews and Aaron (pbuh) did not stop them. So the Torah does not find fault with Aaron's (pbuh) delay tactics, but rather that he let the Children of Israel fall into chaos. "Moses saw that the people were out of control - since Aaron had let them get out of control - so that they were an object of derision to any who might oppose them [the Levites and others]." (Exodus 32:25). The Qur'an gives a similar account, mentioning that Moses (pbuh) "put down the tablet and seized his brother by the head, dragging him towards himself..."

In the Qur'an a similar verse is expressed: Allah SWT told Moses (pbuh) that his people were being tested in his absence. That test was in the form of Samiri's fraud. By definition, those submitted to a test can either pass or fail it depending upon their training and capability. So, the reason why Moses (pbuh) upon return reprimanded Aaron (pbuh) was not that he was holding the latter responsible for leading his people astray. On the contrary, the reason why Moses (pbuh) rebuked Aaron(pbuh) was that he had been made the man in-charge in his absence by Moses (pbuh) (see Qur'an 7:142) and was therefore expected by Moses (pbuh) to have rescued his people by dint of his leadership, which he had been unable to do.

The Written Torah explicitly says that the golden calf came out of the fire by itself, fully formed "And I said unto them: Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off; so they gave it me; and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.'" (Exodus 32:24)

The Midrash Rabba clarifies the terms "the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron" and "he saw and he made and altar before it" by saying (=bringing the tradition) that the context of the verse was that "the people gathered themselves against Aaron saying just as we did to him [the Prophet Hur] so will we do to you." meaning that Aaron (pbuh) was forced to try delaying tactics because the people threated to kill him. The word "gathered against" vayikahel 'al means a disorderly, violent mob, something explicitly said in the Qur'an.

One commentator brings a tradition that Aaron (pbuh) couldn't have been the one who fashioned the golden calf because in Exodus 32:5 it says "And when Aaron saw, he built an altar before it". If he had fashioned it himself, why would the Torah mention to say "he saw"? Another commentator brings a tradition that what Aaron (pbuh) saw was "an angry mob". Another commentator brings a tradition that the words "Aaron saw" is the same as "Aaron feared" in hebrew. All these interpretations reflect aspects of the complete understanding of the Torah verse.

Thus find that the Torah and the Qur'an agree. In fact the Qur'an explicitly says things that are only hinted at in the Torah, thus safekeeping the proper interpretation "confirming the Scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety"

Force non-Muslims to the side of the road?

 Abu Amina Elias February 15, 2016 

In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful

Whenever we read a narration about the Prophet, we need to understand it within its historical, theological, and moral context. One such narration concerns how to treat the people of the Book, Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims when using the road:

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

لاَ تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَلاَ النَّصَارَى بِالسَّلاَمِ فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِهِ

Do not initiate greetings with the Jews and Christians. When you meet any of them in the road, then make him take its narrowest path.

Source: Sahih Muslim 2167, Grade: Sahih

On the surface, it seems like the Muslims are being commanded to be rude to others. However, the Prophet made this statement to his companions when they were departing to confront a Jewish tribe that had just violated their peace treaty.

Ibn Al-Qayyim comments on this tradition, saying:

لَكِنْ قَدْ قِيلَ إِنَّ هَذَا كَانَ فِي قَضِيَّةٍ خَاصَّةٍ لَمَّا سَارُوا إِلَى بَنِي قُرَيْظَةَ

It is said that this was in a specific situation, when they were marching to the tribe of Qurayzah

Source: Zād al-Ma’ād 2/388

Authentic versions of this tradition as narrated by other companions make this context clear.

Abu Basrah reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

إِنَّا غَادُونَ عَلَى يَهُودَ فَلَا تَبْدَءُوهُمْ بِالسَّلَامِ فَإِذَا سَلَّمُوا عَلَيْكُمْ فَقُولُوا وَعَلَيْكُمْ

Verily, I will depart against the Jews in the morning, so do not greet them with peace and if they greet you with peace, then say: And upon you.

Source: Musnad Ahmad 26695, Grade: Sahih

This narration is authentic according to Al-Haythami in Majma’ al-Zawāʼid 8/44 and Al-Albani in Irwā’ al-Ghalīl 1275.

Abu Abdur Rahman Al-Juhani reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

إِنِّي رَاكِبٌ غَدًا إِلَى الْيَهُودِ فَلَا تَبْدَءُوهُمْ بِالسَّلَامِ فَإِذَا سَلَّمُوا عَلَيْكُمْ فَقُولُوا وَعَلَيْكُمْ

Verily, I am riding against the Jews tomorrow, so do not greet them with peace and if they greet you with peace, then say: And upon you.

Source: Sunan Ibn Majah 3699, Grade: Sahih

This narration is authentic according to Al-Albani in Sahih al-Jami’ 2464 and Sahih Ibn Majah 2999.

From these, we can understand that the command to not initiate peaceful greetings and to not accommodate their path was specific to these hostile tribes. In another context, the companions would greet non-Muslims with peace. The Muslims in this case were simply told to continue marching on their way without stopping to accommodate these people.

Even so, it was not permissible for the Muslims to harm these non-Muslims while they walked along the path.

Al-Qurtubi comments on this tradition, saying:

وَلَيْسَ الْمَعْنَى إِذَا لَقِيتُمُوهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ وَاسِعٍ فَأَلْجِئُوهُمْ إِلَى حَرْفِهِ حَتَّى يَضِيقَ عَلَيْهِمْ لِأَنَّ ذَلِكَ أَذًى لَهُمْ وَقَدْ نُهِينَا عَنْ أَذَاهُمْ بِغَيْرِ سَبَبٍ

The meaning is not that if we meet them on a wide road we should force them to take its narrowest edge, as this would be harming them and we have been prohibited from harming them without a just cause.

Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 11/40

It is not allowed in Islam to harm anyone or anything without a just cause. Letting them take the narrow part of the road was simply a means to avoid honoring them, since at the time their tribe was showing hostility towards the Muslims.

Ibn Hajar comments on this tradition, saying:

مَعْنَاهُ لَا تَتَنَحَّوْا لَهُمْ عَنِ الطَّرِيقِ الضَّيِّقِ إِكْرَامًا لَهُمْ وَاحْتِرَامًا

It means do not give up your section of the road to them in order to honor and respect them.

Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 11/40

If we were to honor such people at the time of their wrongdoing, that would only embolden them to commit more crimes. A little harshness in this context is actually an act of love and mercy because it is meant to discourage their bad behavior. This is called tough love.

In general, Islam encourages us to be kind and gentle even to those who are very rude to us, as long as they are not violent against us.

Aisha reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ رَفِيقٌ يُحِبُّ الرِّفْقَ فِي الْأَمْرِ كُلِّهِ

Verily, Allah is kind and he loves kindness in all matters.

Source: Sahih Bukhari 6528, Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi

The Prophet made this statement about a group of Jews that cursed him inside his own home, telling his wife Aisha to be kind and not to curse them in retaliation.

In sum, the tradition about not initiating greetings with non-Muslims and making them use the narrow path was specific to the context of hostilities. It does not mean non-Muslims should be harmed or that we should be rude to them as they use the road. Rather, the general rule in Islam is to be kind and gentle with others.

Success comes from Allah, and Allah knows best.

Unreliable Hadith about Sunset in the Spring of Warm Water

نشرت بواسطة: Waqar Akbar Cheema 12:35 PM في 'arsh , 3991 , abdullah bin ahmad , abu dawud , abu dharr , murky , spring , sun , Throne , warm , water 7 تعليقات

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Analysis of the reliability of the alleged report about the sun setting in a spring of warm water according to the Holy Prophet- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

There is a Hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud that has been brought up by some anti-Islamic polemicists.

The narration:

The narration along with the chain of narrators goes as;

Yazid bin Harun- Sufyan bin Husain- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah- Ibrahim (b. Yazid al-Taymi)- Yazid al-Taymi- Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3991)

Related narrations:

In Musnad Ahmad these words are part of a longer narration reported through same chain of narrators;

Abu Dharr narrated, “Once I was with the Prophet riding a donkey on which there was a saddle or a (piece of) velvet. That was at sunset. He said to me, ‘O Abu Dharr, do you know where this (sun) sets?’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said, ‘It sets in a spring of murky water, (then) it goes and prostrates before its Lord, the Exalted in Might and the Ever-Majestic, under the Throne. And when it is time to go out, Allah allows it to go out and thus it rises. But, when He wants to make it rise where it sets, He locks it up. The sun will then say, “O my Lord, I have a long distance to run.” Allah will say, “Rise where you have set.” That (will take place) when no (disbelieving) soul will get any good by believing then.’” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21459 al-Risala ed.)

This narration is quite similar to the narration found in many hadith works including Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim etc. except the words “It sets in a spring of warm water.”

In Sahih Bukhari it goes as;

Sufyan (al-Thawri)- Al-A’mash- Ibrahim (b. Yazid al-Taymi)- Yazid al-Taymi- Narrated Abu Dharr: The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Messenger know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun is quickly proceeding towards its destination. That is the designing of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing. " (36.38) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Hadith 421)

The significant difference is of the words “it sets in a spring of warm/murky water.”

Analysis of the chains of narrators:

From Abu Darr, it both ways i.e. with and without the words under consideration, it narrated by Yazid al-Taymi and from him by his son Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi. From Ibrahim it is narrated by six different narrators;

1- Al-A’mash: And from him at least five people narrate it. See Sahih Bukhari etc.

2- Yunus bin ‘Ubaid: And from him at least three narrators report this narration. See Sahih Muslim etc.

3- Musa bin al-Musayyab al-Thaqafi: From him it is narrated by Abdah bin Sulayman, See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1189

4- Abdul A’la al-Taymi: The narrator down from him is Mis’ar, See Hilyah al-Awliya 5/89

5- Harun bin Sa’d: Abdul Ghaffar bin al-Qasim narrates from him. See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1191 and Al-Tabarani’s Mu’jam Al-Awst, Hadith 4470

6- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah: The sole narrator down from him is Sufyan bin Husain, See Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad, Mustadrak al-Hakim, Musnad al-Bazzar etc.

Of all these various routes from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, it is only through Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah that these words “It sets in a spring of warm water” are narrated.

In short, there are six narrators reporting the hadith from Ibrahim bin Yazid, and only one of them i.e. Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah quotes the particular words. And to add to the trouble there is again only one narrator down from him and he is Sufyan bin Husain whereas parallel to Sufyan there are at least eleven people narrating the hadith without these words on the authority of five different people narrating from Ibrahim bin Yazid.

Following flow diagram for the above detail gives the pictorial display the strangeness of these words. Down from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi only the narrators with red outline for their names give the words under consideration against loads of other narrators who do not report these words.




The narration is anomalous (shaadh) and defective (mu’allal):

This fact alone is enough to make the narration dubious. No doubt both Al-Hakam and Sufyan are per se trustworthy narrators but because on their respective levels they go against much reliable and numerous narrators. Such a narration reported this way is termed as “shaadh” i.e. anomalous.

Carefully read the definition of anomalous (shaadh) hadith given by Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 A.H.) in his magnus opus, “Kitab Ma’rifat ‘anwa’ ‘ilm al-Hadith” translated under the title “An Introduction to the Science of Hadith”;

“… the anomalous hadith is the one which a reliable transmitter relates and which is in conflict with what other people relate.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, Translated by Dr. Eerik Dickinson, Garnet Publishing Ltd. Berkshire 2006 p.57)

Also see the definition of defective (mu’allal) hadith given by Ibn Salah;

“A defective hadith is one in which a defect impugning its soundness is detected, although it outwardly appears to be free of the defect. That may apply to an isnad made up of reliable transmitters which outwardly seems to fulfill the conditions of soundness. Someone being alone in transmitting the hadith as well as others contradicting him aid in catching the defect.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.67)

And when a report or a part of it becomes “shaadh” it ceases to be a sahih (sound) report. For this the definition of a “Sahih hadith” will help.

Hafiz Ibn Salah writes;

“The sahih (sound) hadith is a “supported” hadith (al-hadith al-musnad), the isnad of which coheres continuously through the transmission of one upright and accurate person from another up to its point of termination. The sound hadith can be neither anomalous (shaadh) nor defective (mu’allal),” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.5)

So merely being “sahih al-isnaad” is not enough for the report itself to be sahih.

Therefore, the very fact that Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah’s narrates differently from five other narrators reporting it on the authority of Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, makes the narration “shaadh” (anomalous) which is a kind of weak (da’if) reports.

But the trouble with the narration does not end here. Down from Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah, Sufyan bin Husain is also unique in narrating these words whereas the number of narrators down from narrators other than Al-Hakam narrating it from Ibrahim al-Taymi is at least eleven. There is not a single supporting narrator for Sufyan either.

Hafiz Al-Bazzar (d. 292 A.H.) after giving this narration writes;

“We do not know anyone other than Sufyan bin Husain reporting it through the chain: Al-Hakam bin ‘Utayba –Ibrahim- his father- Abu Dharr, while Yunus bin ‘Ubayd, Suleman Al-A’mash and Harun bin Sa’d have also narrated it from Ibrahim.” (Musnad Al-Bazzar- Bahr al-Zakhkhar, under Hadith 4010)

And this is important, not only because it adds more to the oddity of the narration, but also because Sufyan bin Husain though generally considered authentic was also criticized by few scholars. This criticism does not harm his general narrations but becomes significant when he goes out of the way and narrates what other narrators from the same original source do not.

Muhammad ibn Sa’d said about him: “He was reliable (but) he made many mistakes in his narrations.” (Tabaqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1990, vol.7 p.227 No. 3417)

Conclusion:

These details make it quite clear that according to rules of reporting it is not right to attribute these words to the Messenger of Allah- on him be the peace and blessings of Allah.

Apparently, the words from Qur’an 18:86 were confused and appended to the hadith that had no link to the ayah whatsoever. The narrator failed to understand the real significance of the verse and the hadith and for apparent semblance he confused the two.

The verse from the Holy Qur’an i.e. surah 18 ayah 86 is simply about how the sunset appeared to Zulqarnain and even the classical Muslim scholars understood it like that. The detailed explanation of it is found HERE.

As to the meanings of the Hadith of Abu Dharr- may Allah be pleased with him- about the sun prostrating under the Throne (‘arsh) of Allah, visit THIS PAGE for explanation.

So the excitement of the missionaries is in vain. Pity!

Indeed Allah knows the best!