|
By
Bassam Zawadi
Acknowledgement: Many thanks to brothers Moumen and Ayman bin
Khaled for their assistance in writing this article
Christian
Argument # 1:
The
hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4434 shows that Muhammad respected
the Torah and thus acknowledged its sanctity. This shows that Muhammad believed
that the Torah at his time was not textually corrupted.
My
Response to Argument # 1:
Following is the hadith in question:
Sunan
Abu Dawud
Book 38,
Number 4434
Narrated
Abdullah Ibn Umar:
A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to
Quff. So he visited them in their school.
They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so
pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle
of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was
then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the
Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.
He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was
brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning
similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431).
My response will be divided into three sections...
1) Is the
narration authentic?
2) If it
is will it prove the argument of the missionaries?
3)
Conclusion
Is the narration authentic?
This report is considered
weak because one of its reporters is Hisham ibn Sa'd whose narratives are
disturbed and corrupted according to many hadith critics like Ibn Hanbal, Ibn
Ma'een, Abu Hatem, al-Nisa'ee, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adii, al-Madini, al-Hakim,
al-'Aqili, Ibn Habban and others.
This is the reason why Ibn Hazm notes:
As for the
report in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) took the Torah and said:
"I believe in thee", it is a fabricated false report that did not reach
us with proper chain of transmission (Ibn
Hazm, Al-Fisal fe al-Milal wa
al-Ahwaa wa al-Nihal, Volume 1, p. 237)
It is also worthy to note that this particular hadith has been reported
through multiple chains of transmission; however, no one has ever mentioned the
incident of the Prophet (saws) praising the Torah except in the report of
Hisham ibn Sa'd from Zaid ibn Aslam.
If it is will it prove the argument of the missionaries?
Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani said...
And so,
some used this hadith as an indication to show that the Torah that the Jews
presented, at that time, to the prophet was all sound and correct and not being
altered. However, this argument is far from correctness because even saying:
((I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.) cannot be used as
this saying refers to the original Torah (which was revelaed to Moses) [Fathul
Bari, Section of rulings of Ahlul dhimma]
As a result, even if we assume the Hadith classification is
authentic (depending on some scholars such as Sheikh Al Albani who credited
Hisham bin Sa'd although I still believe that the majority of the hadith
scholars have spoken against him and thus their case is stronger) the saying of
believing in the Torah and who revealed it does not mean that the Prophet peace
be upon him was referring to what the Jews presented at all. The Prophet peace
be upon him was referring to the original book (Torah) itself. It does not
follow that the whole of the text of the Bible is being endorsed. The Prophet
peace be upon him specifically followed this particular ruling without
generalization i.e., he did not intend to follow all the rulings of the Torah,
but only the judgment on stoning in that particular incident when the Jews
approached him requesting for a judgment to punish the adulterers. So, while
this tradition leaves no doubt that the passage in the Torah that prescribes
the stoning of adulterers is authentic, it cannot be used to prove the
authenticity of other passages. The additional sentence would only refer to the
origin and the core of the Torah, not its textual status, as Imam Ibn Hajar has
noted.
Conclusion
We may summarize the above as...
1) The Hadith has been narrated, as was explained above, from
other authentic chains of transmission. However, the authentic narrations do
not have the part ((I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.)
2) The hadith which has this addition has been collected in Sunan Abu
Dawud from the following chain of narrators: Ahmad Bin sa'ed Al-Hamadni - Ibn
Wahb - Hisham Bin Sa'd - Zaid Bin Aslam - Ibn Umar.
3) This Hadith's classification differed because scholars of Hadith disagreed
on Hisham Bin Sa'd. Therefore, the hadith is not reliable to use as evidence
for there is doubt in regards to one of its narrators.
4) Even if the hadith was authentic it does not prove the claims
of the missionary.
Christian Argument # 2:
Muhammad
is reported to have said that he believed in the Torah in the possession of the
Jews at his time.
Rafi b. Haritha and Sallam b. Mishkam and Malik b. al-Sayf and
Rafi b. Huraymila came to him [Muhammad] and said: 'Do you not allege that you follow
the religion of Abraham and believe in the Torah which we have and
testify that it is the truth from God?' He replied, 'certainly, but
you have sinned and broken the covenant contained therein and concealed what
you were ordered to make plain to men, and I dissociate myself from your sin.'
They said, 'We hold by what we have. We live according to the guidance and the
truth and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you.' So God sent
down concerning them: 'Say, O Scripture folk, you have no standing until you
observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down from your Lord.
What has been sent down to thee from they Lord will assuredly increase many of
them in error and unbelief. But be not sad because of the unbelieving people.' (The
Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with
introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi,
Tenth impression 1995], p. 268)
This
shows that Muhammad believed that the Jews of his time had the textually
uncorrupted Torah.
My Response to Argument # 2:
This problem arises because Alfred Guillaume did not translate a
very crucial word properly. Below is the Arabic text of the story and the
proper translation...
عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس , قَالَ : جَاءَ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَرَافِع بْن حَارِثَة , وَسَلَّام بْن مِشْكَم , وَمَالِك بْن الصَّيْف , وَرَافِع بْن حُرَيْمِلَة , فَقَالُوا : يَا مُحَمَّد أَلَسْت تَزْعُم أَنَّك عَلَى مِلَّة إِبْرَاهِيم وَدِينه , وَتُؤْمِن بِمَا عِنْدنَا مِنْ التَّوْرَاة , وَتَشْهَد أَنَّهَا مِنْ اللَّه حَقّ ؟ فَقَالَ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ " بَلَى , وَلَكِنَّكُمْ أَحْدَثْتُمْ وَجَحَدْتُمْ مَا فِيهَا مِمَّا أُخِذَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْ الْمِيثَاق , وَكَتَمْتُمْ مِنْهَا مَا أُمِرْتُمْ أَنْ تُبَيِّنُوهُ لِلنَّاسِ , وَأَنَا بَرِيءٌ مِنْ أَحْدَاثكُمْ ! " قَالُوا : فَإِنَّا نَأْخُذ بِمَا فِي أَيْدِينَا, فَإِنَّا عَلَى الْحَقّ وَالْهُدَى , وَلَا نُؤْمِن بِك وَلَا نَتَّبِعك
Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and
Rafi b. Haritha, and Sallam b. Mishkam and Malik b. al-Sayf and Rafi b.
Huraymila and they (the Jews) said to them: O Muhammad, do you not allege that
you follow the way of Abraham and his religion, and believe in what we have
from the Torah and testify that it is the truth from Allah? The Messenger of
Allah peace be upon him replied: Yes, however you have innovated and
broken the covenant contained therein and concealed what you were ordered to
make clear to people, and I dissociate myself from your
innovations. They said, 'We hold by what we have. We live
according to the guidance and the truth and we do not believe in you and we
will not follow you.'
If this
story does anything now, it only serves as evidence that the Jews have
corrupted their scriptures. Notice how the crucial words "innovated"
and "innovations" were not properly translated by Alfred Guillaume. He
simply translated the words as "sinned" and "sins".
The fact
that the Prophet (peace be upon him) accused the Jews of innovating shows that
the Prophet (peace be upon him) accused them of adding to the religion things
that did not belong there.
Now
the Christian might reply back and say that it is possible that Muhammad peace
be upon him intended to mean that the Jews innovated by adding their false
interpretations. With all honesty, I will admit that this is true. However, the
Christian must also be honest and equally admit that it is possible that the
Prophet peace be upon him intended to say that the Jews innovated by adding
false verses into the text of the Torah.
Just
by examining this narration alone, we can't know what the Prophet's intention
was. The story is ambiguous when examined alone. Since it is ambiguous
Christians have no right to use this story as a proof that the Prophet peace be
upon him affirmed the textual purity of the Torah since the story allows for
the possibility that the Prophet intended to say that the Jews textually
corrupted their scriptures.
So the
possible interpretation of the story is that when the Jews asked the Prophet if
he believed that what they have in the Torah is the truth from God he said
"Yes" because he believed that there was truth in it, however the
Jews added their innovations to it.
As
long as this interpretation is possible, Christians can't use this narration as
evidence.
----------------------------
