PDA

View Full Version : For Dr. Basyouni or anyone else who can help


sammy
02-27-2008, 12:03 PM
Sorry for being so impatient but here the third attempt. I really do appreciate any response so as I can finish my article:


Dear Sirs,

I am writing a paper regarding the authenticity of a narration found in Sunan Abu Dawud where the Torah is shown great respect:

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).
As I did a search on google I found this in the cache section:

Question about hadeeth mentioned in class


vaids 13
asalamualaikum shaykh,
i was wondering about the authenticity of the hadeeth that was brought up in class. You mentioned that the hadeeth was in Abu Dawood and it was in regards to the Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) and His respect that he showed for the torah. Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) had used it as an evidence supporting Imam al-Bukhari's (rahimahullah) view that the torah had not been changed.

jazak Allah khayr
(by the way--- the class has been awesome so far. For anyone who hasnt taken it yet, take it)

Here is how Dr. Basyouni responded:

Yes, the hadeeth is authentic. I researched the authenticity of the ahaadeeth I would mention as proofs in class beforehand. Note that if I believe a hadeeth to be weak, I would definately mention that in class.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:C5jcWvA1ZbgJ:forums.almaghrib.org/showthread.php%3Ft%3D19832+ibn+taymiyyah+torah+abu +dawood&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:C5jcWvA1ZbgJ:forums.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t%3D19832+ibn+taymiyyah+torah+abu+d awood&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)

I am a bit confused since there is a certain Muslim polemicist named Bassam Zawadi who denies that this hadith is authentic and that Ibn Taymiyyah did not source this narrative.

Could Dr. Basyouni be so kind as to provide the data which supports the authenticity of this quote and the precise citation from Ibn Taymiyyah's works where the Shaikh used this to support al-Bukhari? It would really be of great help in finishing my article concerning this narrative.

I want to thank you so much in advance for any information you are able to provide.

Ammar AlShukry
02-27-2008, 02:08 PM
As for the authenticity it has been declared Hassan by Shaykh Al-Albaani, and you can refer back to his collection of the Saheeh of Abi Dawood.

As for Ibn Taymiyyahs statement, I couldn't find a statement of him supporting Al-Bukhari's view but this is what I found (being that it's from the internet, take it with a grain of salt until you verify it):



قال رحمه الله : ثم من هؤلاء من زعم أن كثيرا مما في التوراة أو الإنجيل باطل ليس من كلام الله , ومنهم من قال بل ذلك قليل , وقيل لم يحرف أحد شيئا من حروف الكتب وإنما حرفوا معانيها بالتأويل وهذان القولان قال كلا منهما كثير من المسلمين , والصحيح القول الثالث : وهو أن في الأرض نسخا صحيحة وبقيت إلى عهد النبي ونسخا كثيرة محرفة , ومن قال أنه لم يحرف شيء من النسخ فقد قال ما لا يمكنه نفيه , ومن قال جميع النسخ بعد النبي حرفت فقد قال ما يعلم أنه خطأ , والقرآن يأمرهم أن يحكموا بما أنزل الله في التوراة والإنجيل ويخبر أن فيهما حكمه , وليس في القرآن خبر أنهم غيروا جميع النسخ .

مجموع الفتاوى (13|104)



He (May Allah have mercy on him) said, "Then from some of these were those who claimed that much of what is in the Torah or Gospels is falsehood and is not from the Speech of Allah, and some of them said a little, and it also has been said that none of the words have been changed at all from the books but rather only the meanings and interpretations have been distorted. And these two opinions have been stated by many of the Muslims. And the correct opinion is the third; and that is, that there existed some unaltered copies that lasted until the time of the Prophet sal Allahu Alayhi wa sallam, and there were many that were altered..."

Ammar AlShukry
02-27-2008, 03:23 PM
Here is another one.
وقال أيضا رحمه الله : والقرآن والسنة المتواترة يدلان على أن التوراة والإنجيل الموجودين في زمن
النبي فيهما ما أنزله الله عز وجل والجزم بتبديل ذلك في جميع النسخ التي في العالم متعذر ولا حاجة بنا إلى ذكره ولا علم لنا بذلك ولا يمكن أحدا من أهل الكتاب أن يدعي أن كل نسخة في العالم بجميع الألسنة من الكتب متفقة على لفظ واحد فإن هذا مما لا يمكن أحدا من البشر أن يعرفه باختباره وامتحانه وإنما يعلم مثل هذا بالوحي وإلا فلا يمكن أحدا من البشر أن يقابل كل نسخة موجودة في العالم بكل نسخة من جميع الألسنة بالكتب الأربعة والعشرين وقد رأيناها مختلفة في الألفاظ اختلافا بينا والتوراة هي أصح الكتب وأشهرها عند اليهود والنصارى ومع هذا فنسخة السامرة مخالفة لنسخة اليهود والنصارى حتى في نفس الكلمات العشر ذكر في نسخة السامرة منها من أمر استقبال الطور ما ليس في نسخة اليهود والنصارى وهذا مما يبين أن التبديل وقع في كثير من نسخ هذه الكتب فإن عند السامرة نسخا متعددة وكذلك رأينا في الزبور نسخا متعددة تخالف بعضها بعضا مخالفة كثيرة في كثير من الألفاظ والمعاني يقطع من رآها أن كثيرا منها كذب على زبور داود عليه السلام وأما الأناجيل فالاضطراب فيها أعظم منه في التوراة
فإن قيل فإذا كانت الكتب المتقدمة منسوخة فلماذا ذم أهل الكتاب على ترك الحكم بما أنزل الله منها قيل النسخ لم يقع إلا في قليل من الشرائع وإلا فالإخبار عن الله وعن اليوم الآخر وغير ذلك لا نسخ فيه
وكذلك الدين الجامع والشرائع الكلية لا نسخ فيها وهو سبحانه ذمهم على ترك اتباع الكتاب الأول لأن أهل الكتاب كفروا من وجهين من جهة تبديلهم الكتاب الأول وترك الإيمان والعمل ببعضه ومن جهة تكذيبهم بالكتاب الثاني وهو القرآن كما قال تعالى
وإذا قيل لهم آمنوا بما أنزل الله قالوا نؤمن بما أنزل علينا ويكفرون بما وراءه وهو الحق مصدقا لما معهم قل فلم تقتلون أنبياء الله من قبل إن كنتم مؤمنين
فبين أنهم كفروا قبل مبعثه بما أنزل عليهم وقتلوا الأنبياء ...
الجواب الصحيح (2|449)

sammy
02-28-2008, 12:22 PM
Brother Malik,

Thank you for answering me, I do appreciate it.

As for the authenticity it has been declared Hassan by Shaykh Al-Albaani, and you can refer back to his collection of the Saheeh of Abi Dawood.
Could you give me the exact reference where the Shaykh said this?

And I would appreciate if you could provide a translation of the Arabic you sourced in your second post.

Bassam Zawadi
03-01-2008, 07:56 AM
Assalamu Alaykum,

I was browsing through the net after googling my name until I found this.

First let me state that I did not say that the whole hadith was weak. I only stated that the particular statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding the Torah and him putting it on the cushion is very likely to be weak.

The reason why I stated this is because the same event is recorded in many other authentic narrations, yet none of them mention anything about the Prophet (peace be upon him) bringing the cushion and uttering the statement regarding the Torah.

I stated that there was a good chance for that narration containing the incident of the cushion is weak is because the chain contains 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.

Even Ibn Hazm said...

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)

Also, I argued that even if the incident is true then this is not proof that the Prophet (peace be upon him) by quoting Ibn Hajar who 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]


Ibn Taymiyyah clearly believed that the Bible in the hands of the Jews and Christians of his time was corrupt...

I believe Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah just makes it so crystal clear on page 146 of his book Al Jawab Al Saheeh when he says...

The Torah and the Bible that is present nowadays are not those that were presented by the Prophets Musa and Jesus.


Ibn Kathir (701-773 AH), the student/disciple of Ibn Taimiyyah, says:
Our Sheikh the notable Imam Abul-'Abbas Ibn Taimiyyah said: As for those who argued that it [the Torah] is entirely corrupted from beginning to end without sparing one letter, they are mistaken. Also, those who argued that nothing has been corrupted are mistaken. The truth is that alteration and change had reached it and they [the Jews] manipulated its words with additions and omissions as they manipulated its meanings. This is well recognized on pondering and may be explained in another occasion, and Allah knows best....

I [Ibn Kathir] say: As for the Arabic Torah in their hands, no sane person doubts its alteration, textual corruption, change of stories and words, additions and obvious clear omissions. Glaring lies and extreme errors are so abundant in it. As regards what they recite with their tongues and write with their pens, we have no access to, but it is assumed they are dishonest liars who frequently invent forgeries against Allah, His Messengers and Books.

As for Christians, their four Gospels on authority of Marks, Luke, Matthew and John are much more divergent and different by addition and omission than the Torah. They disobeyed the rulings of the Torah and the Injil in so many things they legalized for themselves.
(Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, 2/152-153) published by Dar al-Hadith, Cairo, 5th edition, ISBN 977-5227-18-6

Sulaiman ibn Abdul-Qawi al-Tufi (657-716 AH), the student/disciple of Ibn Taimiyyah, notes:
Be acknowledged that these Scriptures [of Jews and Christians] are unreliable because we consider them corrupted and changed. Yes, alteration have not involved them entirely, but reached them after all. That is why our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: (( Do not believe the People of the Book and do not deny them. Say: "We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you. Our God and your God is One, and to Him we have submitted.'' )).
He prohibited believing them for fear of that they may tell us something that is definitely corrupted, and disbelieving them for fear of that it may be not corrupted.
(Sulaiman ibn Abdul-Qawi al-Tufi, Al-Intesarat Al-Islamiyyah, 1/230-232)


You said that Bukhari held the position that the Bible was not corrupt. Bring forth the evidence for this please.

I would also appreciate it if you can email me if you have any questions regarding what I say in my articles. I have my contact email at the bottom of the article you know http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__did_muhammad_c onfirm_the_torah___addressing_the_smokescreens_of_ a_muslim_polemicist_

Assalamu Alaykum

sammy
03-03-2008, 06:56 PM
Bassam's post illustrates my point and the problem. Dr. Basyouni claims that Ibn Taymiyyah quoted the hadith from Abu Dawud whereas Bassam provides quotations where the Shaykh believed the Torah was corrupted. Can Dr. Basyouni clarify his position?

Bassam Zawadi
03-03-2008, 09:06 PM
it doesn't illustrate a problem brother Sammy. Ibn Taymiyyah only used that as a proof to show that there were true copies of the Torah during the Prophet's lifetime. He didn't argue that those true copies still lived on until his time or today.

I personally don't agree with Ibn Taymiyyah's view there either, however it is a possibility.

Abu Amatullah
03-03-2008, 09:47 PM
The point that is being missed is the explanation (Tafsir) of the Torah and not the overall corruption of it's text. Some scholars had argued that the text is uncorrupted, whereas the explanation is no longer the explanation handed down to Moses or Jesus (peace be upon them both). That might be where the misunderstanding is coming from. Shaykhul-Islam's position is clear and even if Imam Bukhari offered up an opinion contrary to what is believed to be closer to the truth, he is entitled to his opinion (may Allah have mercy on him). This matter is trivial at best and one thing this class taught us was to focus on the bigger picture.

Bassam Zawadi
03-04-2008, 06:31 AM
Please show me where Imam Bukhari held this view.

This matter is definitely not trivial. It is my honest opinion that anyone who knows of the contents of the Bible could not have held this opinion.

The Bible accuses the Prophets of the worst of sins and even states that Jesus was crucified. How can anyone say that this is true if he is aware of that?

No, this is not a trivial matter.

and please show me where bukhari held this view.

sammy
03-04-2008, 10:38 AM
it doesn't illustrate a problem brother Sammy. Ibn Taymiyyah only used that as a proof to show that there were true copies of the Torah during the Prophet's lifetime. He didn't argue that those true copies still lived on until his time or today.

I personally don't agree with Ibn Taymiyyah's view there either, however it is a possibility.I am now even more confused. So you are saying that Shaykh ul-Islam DID QUOTE the hadith from Abu Dawud to prove that there was a genuine copy of the Torah at that time? If yes then could you be so kind to post the exact reference and quote? Wow, just when I thought I was figuring this out.

Ammar AlShukry
03-04-2008, 11:06 AM
The quote that I provided for you proves that, where he says that the correct opinion is that there were some that still existed in their original form but there were also many that were altered.
W'Allahu Alam

Ibrahim Long
03-04-2008, 11:23 AM
Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah (661-728 AH) says:
The Torah and the Injil that are present nowadays are not those that were presented by the prophets Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them both). The transmission of the Torah was discontinued when Jerusalem was ruined and the children of Israel were evacuated. It was mentioned that the person who dictated it to them was a man called 'Uzir (Ezra). Some people claimed he was a prophet but others say that he was not a prophet and that a copy of the Torah had been compared to an old copy found with him. It was also said that a copy was brought from Morocco. But all these tales do not prove that the words of this Torah are authentic, nor do they disprove the mistakes in some of them, as was the case in other books copied by more than one person.

It is acknowledged by Christians themselves that the Injil in their hands these days, was not written by the Christ (peace be upon him) or even dictated directly by Christ to one of his scribes. In fact, it was dictated by Matthew and John, two of the disciples of Christ, after he (peace be upon him) left the world, for they had accompanied him. It was not known, let alone memorized, by many people.

It was also written by Mark and Luke, who had not even seen Christ (peace be upon him). These two books mentioned some of the words of Christ and some of his stories but they do not comprise his exact speech or actions.

It is likely that the transmission of two, three or four persons may contain some mistakes. They committed a previous mistake regarding Christ himself when they confused him with the man who had been crucified.
What we mean here is that Christians do not have a reliable authentic transmission from Christ concerning the exact wordings of the Injil or a reliable transmission for most of their religious laws. This is also applicable to the Jews who also do not have authentic transmission for the wordings of the Torah or the prophecies of their prophets. On the other hand, Muslims have authentic clear chains of transmitters for the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which contain facts known to non-specialized as well as specialized people.
(Ibn Taimiyyah, Al-Gawab Al-Sahih, 1/310) published by Dar al-Hadith, Cairo.

sammy
03-04-2008, 12:13 PM
Here is another one.
وقال أيضا رحمه الله : والقرآن والسنة المتواترة يدلان على أن التوراة والإنجيل الموجودين في زمن
النبي فيهما ما أنزله الله عز وجل والجزم بتبديل ذلك في جميع النسخ التي في العالم متعذر ولا حاجة بنا إلى ذكره ولا علم لنا بذلك ولا يمكن أحدا من أهل الكتاب أن يدعي أن كل نسخة في العالم بجميع الألسنة من الكتب متفقة على لفظ واحد فإن هذا مما لا يمكن أحدا من البشر أن يعرفه باختباره وامتحانه وإنما يعلم مثل هذا بالوحي وإلا فلا يمكن أحدا من البشر أن يقابل كل نسخة موجودة في العالم بكل نسخة من جميع الألسنة بالكتب الأربعة والعشرين وقد رأيناها مختلفة في الألفاظ اختلافا بينا والتوراة هي أصح الكتب وأشهرها عند اليهود والنصارى ومع هذا فنسخة السامرة مخالفة لنسخة اليهود والنصارى حتى في نفس الكلمات العشر ذكر في نسخة السامرة منها من أمر استقبال الطور ما ليس في نسخة اليهود والنصارى وهذا مما يبين أن التبديل وقع في كثير من نسخ هذه الكتب فإن عند السامرة نسخا متعددة وكذلك رأينا في الزبور نسخا متعددة تخالف بعضها بعضا مخالفة كثيرة في كثير من الألفاظ والمعاني يقطع من رآها أن كثيرا منها كذب على زبور داود عليه السلام وأما الأناجيل فالاضطراب فيها أعظم منه في التوراة
فإن قيل فإذا كانت الكتب المتقدمة منسوخة فلماذا ذم أهل الكتاب على ترك الحكم بما أنزل الله منها قيل النسخ لم يقع إلا في قليل من الشرائع وإلا فالإخبار عن الله وعن اليوم الآخر وغير ذلك لا نسخ فيه
وكذلك الدين الجامع والشرائع الكلية لا نسخ فيها وهو سبحانه ذمهم على ترك اتباع الكتاب الأول لأن أهل الكتاب كفروا من وجهين من جهة تبديلهم الكتاب الأول وترك الإيمان والعمل ببعضه ومن جهة تكذيبهم بالكتاب الثاني وهو القرآن كما قال تعالى
وإذا قيل لهم آمنوا بما أنزل الله قالوا نؤمن بما أنزل علينا ويكفرون بما وراءه وهو الحق مصدقا لما معهم قل فلم تقتلون أنبياء الله من قبل إن كنتم مؤمنين
فبين أنهم كفروا قبل مبعثه بما أنزل عليهم وقتلوا الأنبياء ...
الجواب الصحيح (2|449)
Brother Maalik,

I ask if you could be so kind as to translate this for the benefit of us ignoramuses who can't read Arabic and also source this quote. :-(

Bassam Zawadi
03-04-2008, 01:28 PM
I am now even more confused. So you are saying that Shaykh ul-Islam DID QUOTE the hadith from Abu Dawud to prove that there was a genuine copy of the Torah at that time? If yes then could you be so kind to post the exact reference and quote? Wow, just when I thought I was figuring this out.

you gotta pay attention akhi, brother Maalik in post 2 showed us where Ibn Taymiyyah said it...


that there existed some unaltered copies that lasted until the time of the Prophet sal Allahu Alayhi wa sallam,


brother Maalik already posted it in English for you.

Abu Amatullah
03-04-2008, 09:57 PM
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) [ Fat-h Al-Bari Fi Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhari: Section of rulings of Ahlu Al-thimma]

Abu Amatullah
03-05-2008, 02:50 PM
Sir Ahmed Syed, for those who know who he is, tried his best to prove through different scholars opinions that the Torah wasn't changed. He even used names like Ibn Abbas, Imam Bukhari, Ibn Taymiyyah, Shah Waliullah, and Imam Fakhru’d-din Razi to try and bolster his claim. His book, The Seventh Discourse, cites Imam Muhammad Isma’il Bukhari stating in his book that “there is no man that could corrupt a single word that has proceeded from God”; Ibn Taimiyyah when questioned on the meaning of tahreef stating that “doctors of former times had taken it in two senses; some maintaining that it meant an interpolation of words; and some that it meant the misrepresentation of the meaning of a subject; and that many arguments had been adduced in support of the latter opinion.”; Shah Wali Ullah in his Fuzu’l-Kabir saying that “the original text was not tampered with”;and Imam Fakhru’d-din Razi in his commentary on the authority of Ibn Abbas stating “. . . in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians, it was not practical thus to corrupt the text; because these scriptures were generally known and widely circulated having been handed down from generation to generation. No interpolation therefore could be made in them . . .”

Sir Ahmed Syed needs no introduction. The baatil he was on is clear and far from controversial and even if we accept these narrations, although they directly contradict other authentic sources, then these scholars respectable opinions would have been far outweighed by so many other scholars stating otherwise with proofs coming from both the Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah. The disagreement is whether or not the Torah was changed in it's meaning or in both text and meaning and "if" there exists a difference of opinion on the matter. Allahu 'Alum. More research is required to verify these statements brought forth by Sir Ahmed Syed to see "if", in fact, there is a legitimate difference in the first place. And, "if" the difference exists, then it wouldn't be the first time great scholars have differed on a certain matter. Each scholar ruled using his best judgment with what proofs were available to him/her.

May Allah have mercy on our 'Ulama

Bassam Zawadi
03-06-2008, 10:58 PM
Imam Razi clearly held the opinion the text has been corrupt and so did Ibn Abbass. I prove this here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evidence_that_islam_endorses_textual_corruption_of _the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures_

Waleed Basyouni
03-16-2008, 11:49 AM
Assalam Alaikum

I am sorry that I did not answer you any sooner. When I saw your question in the beginning and I found the brothers answering you, I did not answer because you posted your question originally by saying: “For Dr. Basyouni or anyone else who can help” and since someone answered you with the right answer I did not see any need for me to further comment. Anyway, what we have here is the following:

1- Is hadeeth Ibn Umar authentic and who narrated it?

You have answered the latter part already as it is narrated by Abee Dawood. It is a sound hadeeth as I mentioned in the class. Al-Albaanee said it is Hasan as one of the brothers mentioned. Ibn Hajar, in “Fath Al-Baaree”, mentioned the hadeeth without criticizing it. His method in this book is that, if he mentions any hadeeth, it is sound unless he states otherwise, as it is well-known. If someone thinks it is weak he needs to prove that and not to say: “It is very likely to be weak” using as a reason: ”The reason why I stated this is because the same event is recorded in many other authentic narrations, yet none of them mention anything about the Prophet (peace be upon him) bringing the cushion and uttering the statement regarding the Torah!” Such a person cannot be familiar with the science of hadeeth, and that is very dangerous to have such attitude. Anyhow, if someone thinks it is weak, so let it be his opinion.


2- Did Al-Bukhaaree say that the Tahreef happened to the meaning and not the text? Yes, this is well known and you can see that in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree in the Book of Tawheed 97, chapter 55 and read what Ibn Hajar comments.

3- Did Ibn Taymiyyah adopt Al-Bukhaaree’s opinion? No, but he defended him and supported his view. However, he believes that some change happened to it but that there must be one copy remaining unchanged. That is different from what Al-Bukhaaree said.

4- Where Did Ibn Taymiyyah say that and where did he used this hadeeth and other evidence to support Al-Bukhaaree’s opinion? It was mentioned by Ibn Al-Qayyim in Igathat Al-Lahfan 2:351, and I’ll quote him in Arabic in the end. And Br. Maalik mentioned other quotes as well, but the one you are looking for is what Ibn Al-Qayyim said and it is the one I used in the class. One more thing, remember what we said in the class that Ibn Al-Qayyim’s opinion is the strongest one, not the extreme positions of Ibn Hazm or Al-Bukhaaree.



Wallaahu a’lam



This case is closed and any more questions can be emailed to me.





قال ابن القيم في إغاثة اللهفان 2/351 :



" فصل وقد اختلفت أقوال الناس في التوراة التي بأيديهم : هل هي مبدلة

أم التبديل والتحريف وقع في التأويل دون التنزيل على ثلاثة أقوال : طرفين ووسط # فأفرطت طائفة وزعمت أنها كلها أو أكثرها مبدلة مغيرة ليست التوراة التي أنزلها الله تعالى على موسى عليه السلام وتعرض هؤلاء لتناقضها وتكذيب بعضها لبعض وغلا بعضهم فجوز الاستجمار بها من البول # وقابلهم طائفة أخرى من أئمة الحديث والفقه والكلام فقالوا : بل التبديل وقع في التأويل لا في التنزيل



# وهذا مذهب أبي عبدالله محمد بن إسماعيل البخاري



# قال في صحيحه يحرفون : يزيلون وليس أحد يزيل لفظ كتاب من كتب الله تعالى ولكنهم يحرفونه : يتأولونه على غير تأويله # وهذا اختيار الرازي في تفسيره # وسمعت شيخنا يقول : وقع النزاع في هذه المسألة بين بعض الفضلاء فاختار هذا المذهب ووهن غيره فأنكر عليه فأحضر لهم خمسة عشر نقلا به # ومن حجة هؤلاء : أن التوراة قد طبقت مشارق الأرض ومغاربها وانتشرت جنوبا وشمالا ولا يعلم عدد نسخها إلا الله تعالى ومن الممتنع أن يقع التواطؤ على التبديل والتغيير في جميع تلك النسخ بحيث لا يبقى في الأرض نسخة إلا مبدلة مغيرة والتغيير على منهاج واحد وهذا مما يحيله العقل ويشهد ببطلانه # قالوا : وقد قال الله تعالى لنبيهمحتجا على اليهود بها : قل فائتوا بالتوراة فاتلوها إن كنتم صادقين قالوا : وقد اتفقوا على ترك فريضة الرجم ولم يمكنهم تغييرها من التوراة ولهذا لما قرؤها على النبيوضع القارىء يده على آية الرجم فقال له عبدالله بن سلام : ارفع يدك عن آية الرجم فرفعها فإذا هي تلوح تحتها فلو كانوا قد بدلوا ألفاظ التوراة لكان هذا من أهم ما يبدلونه قالوا : وكذلك صفات النبيومخرجه هو في التوراة بين جدا ولم يمكنهم إزالته وتغييره : وإنما ذمهم الله تعالى بكتمانهم وكانوا إذا احتج عليهم بما في التوراة من نعمته وصفته يقولون : ليس هو ونحن ننتظره # قالوا : وقد روى أبو داود في سننه عن ابن عمر قال : أتى نفر من اليهود فدعوا رسول اللهإلى القف فأتاهم في بيت المدراس فقالوا : يا أبا القاسم إن رجلا منا زنى بامرأة فاحكم فوضعوا لرسول اللهوسادة فجلس عليها ثم قال : ائتوني بالتوراة فأتي بها فنزع الوسادة من تحته ووضع التوراة عليها ثم قال : آمنت بك وبمن أنزلك ثم قال : ائتوني بأعلمكم فأتي بفتى شاب ثم ذكر قصة الرجم # قالوا : فلو كانت مبدلة مغيرة لم يضعها على الوسادة ولم يقل : آمنت بك وبمن أنزلك قالوا : وقد قال تعالى : وتمت كلمة ربك صدقا وعدلا لا مبدل لكلماته وهو السميع العليم والتوراة من كلماته # قالوا : والآثار التي في كتمان اليهود صفة رسول اللهفي التوراة ومنعهم أولادهم وعوامهم الاطلاع عليها مشهورة ومن اطلع عليها منهم قالوا له : ليس به فهذا بعض ما احتجت به هذه الفرقة # وتوسطت طائفة ثالثة وقالوا : قد زيد فيها وغير ألفاظ يسيرة ولكن أكثرها باق على ما أنزل عليه والتبديل في يسير منها جدا وممن اختار هذا القول شيخنا في كتابه الجواب

__________________

sammy
03-17-2008, 11:48 AM
Thank you so much, dear sir, for taking time out of your busy schedule, to respond. You mentioned that Ibn Hajar commented on Imam Bukhari's statement that the corruption was one of interpretation, not textual. Could you be so kind as to post his comments since I do not have access to them? It would be greatly appreciated.

Waleed Basyouni
03-21-2008, 12:14 PM
This case is closed and any more questions can be emailed to me.




__________________
waleedaou AT yahoo DOT com