This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

---

The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah's words are considered by Muslims as proof of tahrif.

'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD", when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? [7]----

Considered by Muslims? Come on. I'm in a 100% Muslim country with about 50% literacy rates, and "Muslims" somehow have decided that a book they almost surely have never seen has proof of tahrif. Don't get me wrong, most of my neighbors, family and friends believe that the Torah is corrupt - but we don't need to pretend that they have any idea why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.115.115 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a completely skeptic point of view, it seems pretty obvious that the first Muslim writers in fact borrowed texts from the holy books and "religious mythology" of the Jews and Christians (simply because these religions are older, not necessarily wiser or "closer to the truth"). Then, after, copying and editing other people's texts, they go and accuse them of being adultered, just because they do not agree with your version of the fairy tale (and how could they, anyway?). Just like Virgil writing the Aeneid and accusing Homer's Iliad of being wrong. Fernando K

This is not a blog, religious people are not accusing Skeptics of being ill-guided (I say this as an example, I'm not trying to accuse you in a roundabout way.)If they are, they should not be. Wikipedia is a place for Nuetral Point of View, and positive energy. Calling peoples religion "mythology" causes offense and leads to non-productive argument. Please avoid trolling on talk pages, whether or not you do so intentionally. I'm not accusing you, but I am trying to avoid people arguing pointlessly over a matter that has no place on Wikipedia. Please sign your comments with four tildes. Angrynight 03:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angrynight, you yourself are close to trolling by your accusation of others. Religious mythology is an established vice of the religious in all religions - the very fact of their religious motives shows they are for the most part acting out of piety and in the very best of faith. But faith and fact are two very different costumes, one made of a concomitantly lesser length of objective truth than the other.

Nuttyskin 08:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not trying to incite a POV war, but the section alleges an early refutation. How early? I want to hear more, I think whoever wrote the section, while with good intentions of enriching the article, has shortchanged us. This really interests me. I'm genuinly intrigued and want to hear more, please expand it and give more details.Angrynight 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added more information under the "Early refutation" section plus reference to the book on which the information is based. This book is accessible via books.google.com
When searching for more information on this topic, I found out that the argument of tahrif, or forgery, is also used within Islam, between the Sunites and Shi'ites, so I added a new section Blubberbrein2 08:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completed this part by adding some information from the article of a Sunni Scholar about Shi'a viewpoint.Is the Qur’an Corrupted? Shi’ites’ View --Sa.vakilian 12:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are simply too many criticisms scattered about. (71.188.101.57 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The article is POV since

1. It does not reflect what all Muslims think. Many Muslims do not believe in tahrif as it is presented here. For example, According to the Gary Miller [1], Qur'an doesn't say the people of the book changed their books. Qur'an only makes three accusations:

(I) The Quran says some of the Jews and Christians pass over much of what is in their scriptures.

(II) Some of them have changed the words, and this is the one that is misused by Muslims very often giving the impression that once there was a true bible and then somebody hid that one away, then they published a false one. The Quran doesn’t say that. What it criticizes is that people who have the proper words in front of them, but they don’t deliver that up to people. They mistranslate it, or misrepresent it, or they add to the meaning of it. They put a different slant on it.

(III) And the third accusation is that some people falsely attribute to God what is really written by men.

2. In the article Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an we read "Particular Muslims such as the Mu'tazili and Ismaili sects (accounting for a fairly small percentage of total Muslim population), as well as various liberal movements within Islam, believe that different revelations are created by God for the needs of particular times and places."

THEREFORE The article is not neural. I am not sure about factuality but that shia-sunni thing was clearly wrong. (This was not the belief of mainstream shia at least. As a shia, I was angry at that.)--Aminz 09:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Comment: what I say is that the foundation of the doctrine of tahrif is laid by Qur'an. Indeed, when closely looking and analyzing those verses it does not say that the text of the Holy Books of the Jews and the Christians were distorted. That's why is said in the section "Tahrif in the first centuries of Islam":

In the first centuries of Islam, tahrif was not a central theme, though well-known. Early commentaries filled out the gaps left by the relevant Qu'ranic verses.

Muslim scholars were making a distinction in the corruption of the text itself and the wrong interpretation of the text.

In the sense of originality or authenticity of the text itself, the majority of Muslim polemicists in the 8th and 9th century believed that the text of the previous scriptures, at least in the case of the Hebrew Bible, were not corupted. Among them are Ibn al-Layth, Ibn Rabban, Ibn Qutayba, Al-Ya'qubi, Al-Tabari, Al-Baqillani, Al-Ma'sudi

The Qu'ran says the Holy Books of the Jews are the Word of God. The Injil is also the Word of God. But one cannot say "Qu'ran is authentic AND the other Holy Books are authentic". So the claim laid by most Muslims NOW (instead of the early Muslim scholars) is that the text itself is wrong (instead of misinterpreting/misreading). In the first centuries of Islam, most muslim scholars didn't believe so. Ibn Hazm can be looked upon as a turning point
Blubberbrein2 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explanation. I tagged the article to be POV since it does not reflect what all the modern Muslims think. I think this is the very definition of POV. I stress "Not ALL modern Muslims believe in tahrif in the sense that the book has been changed." As you said, they think tahrif refers to the wrong interpretation of the text. So, still there are Muslims who believe in the same way as people thought in the first centuries of Islam. But they are in minority of course.

I don't agree with your statement that "But one cannot say "Qu'ran is authentic AND the other Holy Books are authentic". This is the logic of Qu'ran: It says that Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible. So, now that Muhammad has come, people should listen to him, because Qu'ran claims that the scripture says so. Moreover, “Different narrations” is not foreign to the Bible. I know there may seem a cyclic reasoning here but Qur'an's whole point, to my mind, is that one should not denounce Qur'an only because of its “Different narrations” with Bible. A further investigation is required. Of course, had Qur'an asked people to go after other gods that people didn't know, they would have sufficient evidence not to hear to Muhammad. Thanks --Aminz 22:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the last section. It now reads:

"Although adherents of Sunni Islam and Shi'a Islam are most of the time using the same Qu'ran, some adherents of Shi'a Islam accuse the adherents of Sunni Islam to have a Quran that are removed from the Qur'an, namely (surat al-wilaya and surat al–nurayn), that supposedly were forged in order to justify Ali’s right to succession.
In doing so, the Shiites distort the Quran (tahrif) according to these Sunites. It is also claimed that the Shiites have forged hadiths in order to justify their doctrines.
Shiites believe that Imams are the infallible interpreters of the Qur'an. According to this belief, they alone have the divinely-revealed hermeneutic and commentary on the text, as well as the proper order of the text.

Please provide reliable references. At least show me one Shia scholar who believes in those two Sura's. Thanks. --Aminz 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to more about this, follow the links which already have been provided before (and read it before commenting)
Debate Topics: The Compilation of the Text of the Qur'an and the Sunni-Shia Dispute Blubberbrein2 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blubberbrein2, thanks for the link. I'll go through it but what I want to prove here is that those two sura's are forgery. I think they are forgeries made by Sunnis to accuse Shias. --Aminz 00:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blubberbrein2, in the article:"Misconceptions about the Shi'a" we read: It is a misconception that "The Shi'a believe in the distortion of the Qur'an. (In reality, Shias have the exact same Qur'an as the Sunnis)." I didn't have time to go through the links but ask an editor of the article(:"Misconceptions about the Shi'a") to help us here. Thanks--Aminz 20:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have the same text, but some people who call themselves Shi'ites are claming that the Qu'ran they have misses some verses/chapters. It all his to do with the murder of Ali by some other people, the time of the first 4 caliphes. But I think you know more on this topic. It is not really relevant for the article on Tahrif except that this argument is also used within several branches within Islam. (I mean, for example, I know some Sufi's who fled from regimes where they were not allowed). 'Islam' is like 'christianity' or 'judaism' or other '-isms' not coherent, despite all arguments. That's why I focus myselves on the texts on which ideas and conceptions are based.
Blubberbrein2 20:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blubberbrein2, I browsed the link you sent for me. I need to go over it more carefully later, but found nothing supporting your sentence:"Although adherents of Sunni Islam and Shi'a Islam are most of the time using the same Qu'ran, some adherents of Shi'a Islam accuse the adherents of Sunni Islam to have a Quran that are removed from the Qur'an, namely (surat al-wilaya and surat al–nurayn), that supposedly were forged in order to justify Ali’s right to succession."

As this is the main sentence in the Shia-Sunni part, I'll remove the section. Please show me relevant links. I don't like to go through a link and find it unrelevant to what I am looking for there. I found no support for the sentence "some adherents of Shi'a Islam accuse the adherents of Sunni Islam to have a Quran that are removed from the Qur'an, namely (surat al-wilaya and surat al–nurayn), that supposedly were forged in order to justify Ali’s right to succession." Thanks. --Aminz 07:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This links http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/dispute.htm says in paragraph 5.3:

The fact is is that, according to Shi'ites (and you don't take the words of the common Shi'ite, but rather of their major scholars such as Ayatollahs), the Qur'an is correct when both sects read it. They don't have 2 different Qur'ans. The only people who say this are Shi'ite-haters. Armyrifle 21:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5.3 Sunni Polemics Since the Sunni-Shia divide was primarily political in origin, the contribution of Khomeini and Siddiqi might indicate that a major bone of contention has been healed, and we can only pray that the peaceful relations the two Islamic sects have enjoyed in Britain and the West will continue. However, the divide encompasses more than political considerations. A relatively minor problem is that Shi'is do not believe the Qur'an is uncreated. The Shia, because they hold that the active attributes of God, such as speaking, are not eternal, believe that the Qur'an, as the 'speech' of God, is created. To Shia, the Sunni view borders on polytheism. '
A major difficulty is that Sunni and Shi'i polemicists accuse each other of corrupting the Qur'an'. Saudi Arabia has printed a number of anti-Shia booklets in English in recent years which allege that the Shi'is make this claim about the Sunnis - that the latter have tampered with the text by excising verses. For example, the Jamaican-Canadian Muslim convert, Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, one of the most respected Islamic scholars in the West, has translated anti-Shia works which make this assertion, especially about the 'missing' Surah concerning Ali, Surah Wilaya, that the Shi'is are supposed to allege was excised from the Qur'an. A further claim is that Shi'is believe that yet another chapter Surah Nurain (forty-one verses), the 'Chapter of the Two Lights' (i.e. Muhammad and Ali) was removed. Sunnis allege that Shi'is believe that the authentic copy of the Qur'an, compiled by Ali, is in the hands of the Twelfth Imam and will be presented by him when he returns as Mahdi. In the meantime, Shi'is use the 'Uthmanic Qur'an, but they interpret it in the light of their Hadith collections, which reinterpret texts in the Sunni edition of the Qur'an after a Shia fashion. According to Sunni polemicists, a Shi'i hadith purportedly states:

Jabir says, 'I heard Imam Baqar... saying: One who says that he has collected the whole Quran is a big liar'.

It goes on to state:

'Only Ali and the Imams collected it all and preserved it.'

It is noteworthy that even a respected Orientalist scholar such as Montgomery Watt echoes this belief.

The Shi'a, it is true, has always held that the Qur'an was mutilated by the suppression of much which referred to 'Ali and the Prophet's family. This charge... is not specially directed against 'Uthman, but just as much against the first two caliphs, under whose auspices the first collection is assumed to have been made.

Shi'is deny these accusations, and state that they uphold the veracity of the present edition. The great Shi'i scholar Shaykh Saduq, (919-991 A. D.), stated (and with this agree the Shi'i scholars Allama Ridha Mudhaffar and Sayyid al-Murtadha)

Our belief is that the Qur'an, which God revealed to His Prophet Muhammad (is the same as) the one between the boards (daffatayn).

Jafri comments:

... the text of the Qur'an as it is to be found in the textus receptus,... is accepted wholly by the Shi'is, just as it is by the Sunnis. Thus the assertion that the Shi'is believe that a part of the Qur'an is not included in the textus receptus is erroneous.

I completed this part by adding some information from the article of a Sunni Scholar about Shi'a viewpoint.Is the Qur’an Corrupted? Shi’ites’ View --Sa.vakilian 12:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some adherents of Shi'a Islam accuse the adherents of Sunni Islam to have a Quran that are removed from the Qur'an, namely (surat al-wilaya and surat al–nurayn), that supposedly were forged in order to justify Ali’s right to succession.

--Striver 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES, Get rid of this!!!!!!!!! Shia Muslims don't believe in surat al-wilaya and surat al–nurayn at all. --Aminz 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of the section is that the argument of tahrif is used within different Islamic groups.

I have no objection with the existence of this part. It would be better to use the Shia's own sources . Thanks.--Aminz 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, but please don't remove it, before you provided sources that say the something more about their position.

I think we should add a part titled "Criticism of Tahrif". The criticial arguments can be then moved to there. For example, "According to some scholars on the field of Middle East studies, Muhammad's attachment to the Bible was doubtless born of a desire to give legitimacy to his own message, to stress the affinity of Islam to the two better established and more widely accepted monotheistic faiths, and most specifically to Judaism. The "religion of Abraham" motif served that end, as did the Qur'an extensive citation of biblical material and Muhammad's acceptance of Jews as "People of the Book". But if that was Muhammad's intent, the situation was quite different for later Muslims. Their problem was to separate and distinguish themselves from those other two groups, to disengage themselves, so to speak, from their prophetically bestowed biblical heritage." can be moved to that section.

How is that? --Aminz 06:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of the article is indeed now more becoming loose. How to resturcture it is a open question mark

To give you some background info about the strcuture:

The section "Qur'an lays basis" is to show which verses are basis for the doctrine of tahrif. If you look closely is does indeed not say that the text of the Hebrew Bible and the Gospel were altered (what some modern scholars say today, as you quote one), but that they were not followed (transgessed) or that their meaning was altered. The Qur'an even states that there were people of the Gospel in the time of Mohammed who had to follow what was revealed to them, so basically the Gospel had to be there in unaltered form at the time of Mohammed.

That why is stated in the section about Tahrif in the early days:
"Muslim scholars were making a distinction in the corruption of the text itself and the wrong interpretation of the text.
In the sense of originality or authenticity of the text itself, the majority of Muslim polemicists in the 8th and 9th century believed that the text of the previous scriptures, at least in the case of the Hebrew Bible, were not corupted."

The turning point for this belief is Ibn Hazm, who wrote an extensive work about the subject and said that the text itself was corrupted.

It is a fact that most issues raised by early Muslim polemists were drawn from earlier disputes. One example are the Arians, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arians. Especially ""Arian" as a polemical epithet" is a nice section for some historic background info

Greetings, and I value your remarks. Blubberbrein2 07:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blubberbrein2, I also do believe that Qur'an does not make such an accusation. It seems that we both agree on a lot of points.

Regarding the structure of the article, I think we should have a part titled "criticism of the doctorine of Tahrif". There are already critical arguments in the distributed in the article. I think the reader will get a better idea if we could gather all the arguments together in one part. I'll think about a good structure. Good night, --Aminz 08:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least. I haven't read over the article in its entirety I haven't the time. But the first few sentences seem quite accusatory. I do not remember it being that way the last time I viewed the article. Would someone look into it? Angrynight 02:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I didn't get to work on the article. The article is currently POV (which only says that not all views are represented there). As an example see: http://www.mostmerciful.com/quran-does-not-state-bible-is-true.htm

The problem is that I need to do research and find out other ideas. Thanks --Aminz 00:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't saw any movement going, so please go ahead with your research!
Blubberbrein2 08:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above mentioned article just verifies that the doctrine of tharif is established, because the author is saying that the biblical books are corrupted. From what I read from this URL is that there is a guy named Silas who says: "Many Muslims today say the Bible is corrupted. But there is nothing in the Quran that supports this. There is not one word in the Quran that teaches that the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians have been perverted by man. Instead, the opposite is true. The Quran supports the Bible."
This view is refuted by using quranic verses 5:12;13 en 11:110 and concludes that the Qur'an does indeed say the biblical accounts are corrupted (which I doubt in the case of 5:12;13 because 5:12;13 says that the Israelites just did not live according to their law)

In 6:63-6:86 it says (Hilali-Khan):

006:083 And that was Our Proof which We gave Ibrahim (Abraham) against his people. We raise whom We will in degrees. Certainly your Lord is AllWise, AllKnowing.

006:084 And We bestowed upon him Ishaque (Isaac) and Ya'qub (Jacob), each of them We guided, and before him, We guided Nuh (Noah), and among his progeny Dawud (David), Sulaiman (Solomon), Ayub (Job), Yusuf (Joseph), Musa (Moses), and Harun (Aaron). Thus do We reward the gooddoers.
006:085 And Zakariya (Zachariya), and Yahya (John) and 'Iesa (Jesus) and Iliyas (Elias), each one of them was of the righteous.

006:086 And Isma'il (Ishmael) and Al-Yas'a (Elisha), and Yunus (Jonah) and Lout (Lot), and each one of them We preferred above the 'Alamin (mankind and jinns) (of their times).

In 2:163 it syas:

Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.

In 4:163 it says (Hilali-Khan, quranbrowser.com):

Verily, We have inspired you (O Muhammad SAW) as We inspired Nuh (Noah) and the Prophets after him; We (also) inspired Ibrahim (Abraham), Isma'il (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Ya'qub (Jacob), and AlAsbat [the twelve sons of Ya'qub (Jacob)], 'Iesa (Jesus), Ayub (Job), Yunus (Jonah), Harun (Aaron), and Sulaiman (Solomon), and to Dawud (David) We gave the Zabur (Psalms).

So what is it saying? It says that God inspired many people, and most of them mentioned are from the Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his offspring. 'The tribes' are the 12 tribes of Israel (as maybe known their whoile history is recorded in Joshua, Book of Judges, Kings, Chronicles).
Other people include Noah (recorded in Genesis), Ishmael (recorded in Genesis), Jospeh (recorded in Genesis), Jona (recorded in the book of Jonah), Job (recorded in the book of Job), Lot (also mentioned in Genesis), Elias (recorded in the book of Kings), Zachariya (mentioned in some of the first chapters in the Gospels), Jesus (his life and teaching is recorded in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles and the letters), David (mentioned in Chronicles, Kings, Psalms), Solomon (he wrote a lot of proverbs in Proverbs and has written Eccl.).
It does not really matter whether Moses has written whole of the 5 books. Apparently this is not possible, since his death is mentioned, so some later author had to add that, but it would be someone from 'the tribes', for example Joshua (recorded in the book of Joshua), the successor of Moses.
Furthermore it mentions other prophets "and that which the prophets received from their Lord.", so that could include some or all the prophetic books of the Old Testament (like Isaiah, Amos, Haggai and so on).

OK, having established that the Qur'an referres to many prophets that were inspired by God it continues and says that Mohammed was inspired by the same God! (4:163)
The problem with this statement is that the Qur'an and the several biblical books contradict one another, so one of the 2 (Qur'an vs. the many biblical books) has to be of another spirit then the Spirit of God.
And that is were the argument/doctrine of tahrif comes up: the books the Jews and Christians possess are corrupted because the Qur'an MUST be true because it is inspired by God (i.e. the word of Allah), so anything else is in error.
Blubberbrein2 08:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blubberbrein2, Thanks for explanation. I didn't claim that what this website says is true. I just said that there are other views not covered in the article. I am not still sure about their ideas and to be honest have not done enough research. But as for now, since it is my fault of not doing research, I'll remove the POV tag. I am again sorry for being lazy. We should sometimes discuss about difference between Quran and Bible. Take care --Aminz 10:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the section "Accusation of forgery polemical motif in pre-Islamic times" because 1 most of it refers to post-Islamic accusations and 2 the rest of it I do not think is factual at all. I've done some research on early Christian disputes and I've never encountered either side accusing the other of corrupting the text. I'm also removing from the section "Tahrif in the first centuries of Islam" mention of early Islamic concepts of textual corruption. I've never heard of this kind of tahrif in the first centuries, nor does this section mention a single Muslim who believed it. It's natural to think that because we currently believe something, the original founders of the faith believed it which is why the section was probably written in the first place. But, if someone can give a reference they may welcomingly rv my deletions. (BTW, I mention this so no one accuses me of a mass deletion.) --Ephilei 04:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Islam is 1400 years old at best. There is no such thing as 1st century tarif. The Greek Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls validate that Christ and the Apostles used these writings in the 1st century. The Catholic church still has the authoritative and complete model of the OT and NT in Greek. Since Jesus used them then tarif unintentially accused Jesus of using corrupt text. Tahrif is refuted on the bases that it contradicts Jesus and the Apostles and the Dea Sea Scrolls. Ultimately this means there is no need for the Quran. (Simonapro 22:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Both of these sections need to be deleted. Simply because they do not realte to the article. The article is about Tahrif Doctrine in Islam and those sections blatantly quote the bible and show the Christian/Jewish POV. Effectively turning the article into a comparative religion debate. These sections are:

Origin of tahrif

Qur'an and the claim of the corruption of the text itself'

I've edited the sections about the sunni islam shia islam. Whoever quoted Shmuel Bar on the sunni opinions on shiites tahriif, failed to mention that the author affirmed that the shiites believe that the Quran is missing some verses on the same page! So i added a sentence showing the author's opinion on this matter. Its from footnotes footnote #10. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.220.17.250 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is important for NPOV that if the article states that Islam believes current Jewish and Christian beliefs are either distorted or based on falsification of Holy Texts then Jewish and Christian responses are given. That this includes relevant Old and New Testament passages as well as commentators would seem to be demonstrating key sources. Cosnahang 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got to do this and added a section on Modern Christian refutations. In my search I found a lot of v strong emotions on a lot of website and little academic rigor. The Josh McDowell material is as balanced and fair minded as it gets. Cosnahang (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half the dates in this article are only given in the Islamic calendar. We are not an Islamic Encyclopedia, we should only be using the gregorian calendar.

"To translate a word that has two meanings in the meaning that is totally against the context. For example the Hebrew word ‘ابن’ was translated as ‘son’ whereas it also meant ‘servant’ and ‘slave’."

If the word in question is Hebrew, why is it written in Arabic script. Wouldn't it be more illustrative in the correct language? Then the pun would be more apparent . I would change it, but I don't know the word to which it refers. Off the top of my head, I don't know a word commonly used for both a son and a slave. 68.196.254.231 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. ‘ابن’ translates as 'בן' ben. Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (1847) and still pretty much the last word on OT words interestingly enough immediately back translates the Hebrew to Arabic as above. He has only one definition used in the Old Testament of the Bible (OT) that is 'Son' with a single Strong's Concordance reference of 1121 (i.e. only one English word is used in the Authorised/King James version of the Bible to translate this word) However a wider reference is made by St Paul in Galatians chapter 4 verse 1-2 gives a view of the young child's effective role as a slave until he becomes a man. It would be easy to see how the Arabic 'abd' took on this meaning. Cosnahang (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some tagging, but yes, this is reeking with apologism and debate. Unreferenced sources are used to prove that tahrif is incorrect, and even illogical arguments. At least half of this article is trying to prove the entire idea is false. --Enzuru 21:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, lots of this material comes from James White, no? --Enzuru 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it still needs a lot of work. --Kabad (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reeks with PoV, and apparently whoever wrote the refutation section did some personal research. We need a direct quote to the Koran for the verse, and modern interpretations from published Islamic scholars. Not some random person's opinion. The Fear (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also putting this article under original research. Many of the sources are non-neutral, so the Refutal section, at least in my opinion, should be removed.The Fear (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does apologism belong at all in this article? This isn't Answering-Islam. --Enzuru 07:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that all views on a subject should be given, but within the realm of the religion itself. This article is about Tahrif and the Muslim viewpoint on it, since it is a topic in Islam. If you want refutals on this subject I'd advise to either add this to criticism of Islam, or delete the section. This isn't a religious fight.

Also, since the refutal section seems to be original research, I thought I'd add in a few comments, especially on the "No reason Christians and Jews to change scriptures": Translations usually lose meaning over time, and since most bibles are in English nowadays, you can imagine the translation errors that exist between the languages. Meanings never truly move perfectly from language to language, and over 2000 years of translation, and the lack of original Aramaic scripts give tons of different interpretations. This is just my two cents, and will not be reflected in the article, however if the refutal section remains I will try to find a published article giving reasons justifying Tahrif in the Muslim view, as a counter-argument. 72.219.231.47 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly the refutation goes over the issue that textual tahrif cannot be found in early Muslim sources, it is something that is a more modern theory. However, I think that James White's point is flawed because it relies on Sunni sources, I think textual tahrif appears in Shi'a sources around Jafar as-Sadiq's time. But once again, that isn't the point in hand. --Enzuru 03:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would very gently deny that I did original research for the refutation section. I knew what the well known and frequently rehearsed objections Christians have to Tahrif were and looked through my personal library and on the web for a concise quote (see above). Does this make it original research?

I avoided answeringislam.com.

Secondly the refutation is needed to create balance. In any situation where x says something negative about y then y 's views should be represented. Is this not NPOV? I tried in the introductory sentence to indicate that these were arguments from a specific view point not truth.

I would welcome 72.219.231.47 writing a well documented section on modern Muslim counter-arguments to the Christians refutation as it will add to the usefulness of the article. Cosnahang (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosnanhang, when you, following my edit [2], update [3] incorrect information attributed to the same source [4], do you call this tahrif -corruption - regardless of how good your intentions are? Or are 'minor variations' [5] of couple hundred years OK? Kabad (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the refutation of tahrif in this article is longer than the actual description of tahrif itself. Yes, the Jewish and Christians views can be mentioned in this article as well as Muslim views in light of contemporary findings on scripture, but in passing. Apologetics should be kept to a minimum. --Afghana ^[talk] 04:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has lost a lot of pertinent information which I feel is important to the article in the time I've been away. Compare it to this version from a year ago. Would anyone object to the restoration of the Tahrif in the First Centuries of Islam and the Qur'an and the doctrine of tahrif sections in some form? I feel that at the very least the Quranic sources for the concept should be cited. Peter Deer (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At it's current state, it is nowhere near a neutral POV. I came to this article to try to learn what the Tahrif IS, and left more confused than I came. I know about Islam theological scholorly history, but that's not what this article should be about at all. Not to mention, all the Judeo-Christian comparisons could leave someone completely lost if the reader didn't grow up in a Judeo-Christian culture. This article is more misinformation than it is information. Psydude (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this subject can ever be covered in a simple NPOV way, it is vitally important to all three religions that the texts they use are valid. For one to suggest corruption by the others is hot stuff and so commentators from the other two have had a lot to say in reply. Cosnahang (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Afghana and Peter Deer that the article should concentrate on the Islamic side and that certainly the introduction has lost the clarity the earlier one had. I think that means beefing up the Islamic bit with good quotes etc. Cosnahang (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just come back here after a while away. There has been a good upgrade to the Islamic section, I have found the al-Bukhari quotes online to help. Cosnahang (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section Tahrif#Further_Modern_Christian_criticism currently states: "Modern Christian rejection of tahrif is based on seven broad arguments".

However, only five are listed. Are the other two missing, should the above simply be changed to five? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElijahOmega (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

assalam o alaikum i wanted to add some thing about the hadid being quoted the words of waraqa do not suggest that the message in the bible was corrupted or not but suggests that there exist signs in the same for the revelation of a prophet after Jesus (pbuh) which will get a divine message as did prophets before him but with an exception that he will be the last messenger and no divine word will come after wards the corruption occurred or not is not the issue the issue is when a christian covenant is suggesting that the person will be given a divine message it means that it will be better then bible because if it(bible) was complete what was the need of the new message hence there also exists a sign for those who are given knowledge by ALLAH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.48.56 (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Article: "[...]early scholars known to support the lack of change of the Tawrat and Injil[...]".

What is meant here? That these scholars spoke out against the view that the old scriptures had been altered? Please clarify! Also, a quotation or two from their own writings would be in order here, I think. - 88.78.206.14 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following needs a non-Primary source.

Evidence

There are no real evidence provided for Tahrif. Some try to use the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah 8:8 to be interpreted as a proof of tahrif, but the sentence is not a proof for Tahrif, This sentence is stating what the sinners and the idol worshipers would say.

“8. How do you say, "We are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us"? Verily, behold it is in vain, he made a false scribes' pen."

— Jeremiah 8:8

Editor2020, Talk 03:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice I can scarcely find an article on a exclusively Christian subject without one; if there is a Christian article which even coherently attempts to set forth the Christian perspective, rather than some so-called scholarly 'consensus', where 'scholar' is arbitrarily defined to eliminate both contemporary and historical Christian writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, certainly such claims of 'Tahrif' can be compared against archaeological, paleological and otherwise historical evidence, extant manuscripts which far pre-date Islam, etc.

The only religion held in contempt on wikipedia is Christianity, I would speculate that this is due, not even to the carefully selected pieces of misguided scholarship, but to the personal motivations and views of wikipedians. Just as in society Islam is to be left alone in an air of healthy respect and Christianity is to be mocked in an air of disdain, so it is on wikipedia. LikkerdySplit (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or is there primary research in the lead-section? I would prefer a scholary secondary source which analzsed how Muslims view this and also analyze the impact of the cited scholars. Anyone can cite Ibn Taimiyya and attribute to Muslims probably many rejected. I would like to remove the citations, if there is no opposition and rewrite the lead slightly. It might be generally accepted that Muslims agree that the Bible is not the original word of God, that Jews and Christians intentionally altered the book is rather disputed. For example Injil (New Testament basically) is said to have been lost, not altered.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Occam's razor has it, the simplest explanation tends to be more likely to be correct. Why presume a massive conspiracy of fabrication to change the content of a huge corpus of sacred literature (which there are serious and solemn prohibitions in tradition against altering)? When the burden of alteration is more likely to run the other way, that since the time(s) of Biblical inscription, the actions of characters featured in it have been reinterpreted as sinful? The Quranic and Islamic definition of Zina as "unlawful sexual intercourse outside of marriage", for example, did not exist in the historical period depicted in the Torah. The gradual accrual of prohibitions against non-marital sex within Abrahamic monotheism in general has doubtless led to an oral tradition in pre-Islamic monotheistic traditions that is stringently anti-sex. Looking back at the textual sources which inspired the specifically Islamic form of monotheism, Muslims are horrified to find it does not agree with their set of rules. How could such a thing have happened? Obviously, the Quran and Islam can't be at fault — no, the fault must lie in the Torah, which has somehow been altered since ancient times.

It seems strange that within the entire history of Islamic exegesis, this opposite point-of-view argument has never been advanced. Nuttyskin (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]