mohammedan criticism of the bible (1901)

8/12/2019 Mohammedan Criticism of the Bible (1901)

1/20


2/20

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

MOHAMMEDANCRITICISM OFTHE BIBLE.

THE attitude of the Moslim Church towards the Biblecannot be better seen than in the following abstract fromone of the most renowned Arabic works on Religious Sectsand Denorinations. It is an attempt to interpret Deut.xxxiii. 2, and reads thus :-It is saidin the Torah,that GodarrivedfrommountSinai,appearedin Sair, and revealed himself in Faran. Sair stands for the hills in

Jerusalemwhere Jesus preached, whilst Faran signifies the heightsof Mecca where the chosen prophet (Mohammed)declared himself.Since the divine secrets and heavenly lights which accompanyinspiration, revelation, divine promptings and their interpretationled up to the three stages of commencement,continuation,and com-pletion, and since "arrival" corresponds most closely to thecommencement, appearing to continuation, and "revelation" tocompletion: the Torah expresses the dawn of law-giving, and itsproclamationby employingthe phrase of coming upon mount Sinai,and the rising of the sun by the appearance (of Jesus) on Sair, whilstthe third stage, viz. completion,is reachedthroughthe revelation onFaran.By means of this allegory Al Shahrastani wishes toconvey that Judaism and Christianity led up to a climaxwhich is Islam. The character of Islamn as the embodimentof the two preceding religions is therefore predicted in the

Bible which thus becomes obsolete.Now the Qoran already distinguishes between the Lawas revealed on Sinai, and the Bible as it was found in thehands of the Jews, or rather as Mohammed reconstructedit from the religious practices he observed among them.1 Al Shahrastani, Kitabal mila alalnihal ed. Cureton, I, p. I65 sq.

222


3/20

MOHAMMEDAN CRITICISM OF THE BIBLEWishing to uphold the divine origin of the Torah withoutincurring any liability as to its ritual laws, he declaredthat it had been tampered with by the Rabbis, who bymaking new laws aspired to divine honours . On thisaccount he sought to prove that a heathen element hadcrept into the Jewish Church. The inconsistency of in-troducing Rabbinic regulations into the doctrines of Islamis due to his lack of authentic knowledge of the JewishScriptures, but does not concern us at this moment.When examining Mohammed's attitude towards theBible, one cannot help observing that it was almost thesame as that of the Karaites. He only acknowledged asgenuine what he considered to be the revealed text of theTorah, and this he took in a strictly literal sense. Thosewhom he held responsible for the alteration of the Law hestyled Rabbanites 2, thus being actually the first to employthis term, which was used, in the same deprecatory mannerlater on, by the Karaites. Now we do not cherish anyillusions as to our knowledge of the embryo life and earlyyouth of this sect, and here I should like to call attentionto one possible factor which has hitherto remained un-noticed, but which may perhaps shed a dim light on thisdark period of Jewish history. The spiritual sphere of theJewish masses was anything but wide during the timewhen the Talmud was nearing completion, and theirknowledge of Judaism was derived from traditional practice,rather than from the study of Rabbinic writings.On the other hand, we see Islam causiifg a mighty stiramong the thousands of its followers. These, in their turn,represented public opinion which was, of necessity, alsoactive among the numerous Jewish communities to befound in their midst. We need not enlarge on the influenceof public opinion on people with limited capacities, becausethere is no difference in this respect between past andpresent. Among the Jews who saw the rise of Islam weremany who had been converted from paganism, and who1 Qor. iii. 73. 2 Ibid. and v. 48, 68.

223


4/20

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEWhad neither much religious knowledge nor strong con-victions to impart to their children. In view of the strictRabbinical interpretation of the Mosaic law, the Moham-medan way of looking at the same probably appealed tothis class of people, who, without formally abandoningJudaism, endeavoured to shape it exclusively according towhat they found written in the Pentateuch.I do not, by any means, assert that Islam was the onlyfactor which helped Karaism into existence, but it wascertainly one of its agents. Great historical movementsnever start from one point only, but are set rolling invarious ways which converge into one main road. It ishardly by accident that Karaism was born and lived thebest part of its life in Moslim countries, and it is, to saythe least, noteworthy that Karaites adopted the Qoranicterm Rabbdniyyin to describe, or rather denounce, theadherents of the Rabbinic code. At the time when Karaismwas at its height, Arabic was the language of Karaiteauthors (although it was not so much used at first), and themethods employed in all branches of scientific endeavourswere those of the Arabs.There is one point in common between Judaism andIslam, viz. that both their ritual and civil codes are portionsof their respective religious laws. The rules for interpretingordinations developed in the Talmud are in some wayparalleled by a few similar ones employed by Moslimtheologians. Where the Qoran and the oldest strata oftradition gave 'no clue for the solution of certain ritualor legal questions, they had recourse to the ra'y (speculativededuction of decisions), or to the qiyds (analogy), or taqlid(adoption of another teacher's opinion in case of doubt).This system not being so well worked out as the processof Talmudic discussion, left too much room for individualconceptions on the part of the Mufti. It did not take long,tlerefore, ere a reaction set in. In the third century ofthe Hijra, a school was founded in the Iraq (Babylon), whichrejected all indirect deduction, and returned to the Qoran

224


5/20

MOHAMMEDAN CRITICISM OF THE BIBLEand the oldest tradition. The school bears the name of theZdhirites1, i.e. those who explained the sacred word accord-ing to its literal meaning, and a full account of its historyand doctrines has been given by Professor Goldziher2.As one can easily perceive, there is a certain resemblancebetween the Zahirite movement and the endeavours of theKaraites. It is, however, very difficult to say whetherKaraite influence on Moslim theology was such as topromoteZahirism,or whether the latter arose spontaneously,both being brought into existence by common impulses.It must be noted that both reached their apogees at aboutthe same period, and spread from their original homes asfar as Spain.It was in this country that Zahirism attained its utmostlimits by finally including even dogmatic principles in itsteachings. It was thus brought into direct conflict withthe fundamental axioms of the Bible, which could not beoverridden by the simple process of abrogation, as was thecase with ritual observances. The man who first appliedthe Zahirite method to the Bible was Abu aohammed Ali,better known as Ibn Hazm al-Zdhiri 3 He was a nativeof Cordova, and born in 994, only one year after Samuelb. Nagrela, who was a native of the same town.Now the name of Samuel b. Nagrela is sufficient toremind us that at this period Cordova was one of theforemost centres of Jewish learning. Famous men wereon the increase. HIisdai b. Shafrut, Menahem,and Diinashhad just died, but besides these, such men as Moses b.Hanokh, Josef b. Abitur, Jahuda Hayyuj brought renownto the city. In spite of his fanaticism, Ibn Hazm was

The main doctrine of the Zahirite is expressed in nuce n the followingwords by Ibn HIazm (fol. 72vo): "We acknowledge in our religionnothing but what is contained in the Qoran, or what is founded onreliable and trustworthy tradition, as being taught by the messenger ofAllah. Everything else we regard as of no account."2 Die Zahiriten und ihr Lehrsystem,Leipzig, 1884.8 See Ibn Khallikan, BiographicalDictionary, ransl. by de Slarfe, II,p. 267 sqq., cf. Goldziher, I.c., p. II6 sqq.VOL.XIII. Q

225


6/20

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEWin constant intercourse with learned Jews, and recordedseveral discussions he had with them. He makes specialmention of Josefb.Abdalldh,Kddhi (orDayyan) of Cordova1,whose Hebrew name was probably Josef b. Obadyah. Onanother occasion he alludes to "a person well read inHebrew," with whom he conversed on the etymology ofthe name Israel . A third discussion with a Jewish authoritywill be noticed later on.Mohammedan biographers record among Ibn Hazm'swritings a treatise Exposure of the alterations (in the Bible)made by Jews ard Christians3. This is, however, buta special title given to the first section of his large workentitled Book of Religions and Denominations, of whichseveral MS. copies are in existence. It is from this workthat the following observations are taken, but I have onlyselected such as refer to the Old Testament.

Before discussing them we will briefly consider the scopeand method of Ibn Hazm. His object in criticizing theBible was to substantiate the charges brought by Mohammedagainst Jews (and Christians) of falsifying their holy Writs.His strict way of interpreting the Qoran led him to takethis accusation in its literal sense, and he therefore thoughthe was but fulfilling a religious duty in pointing out thosepassages in the Bible where the advent of Mohammed hadbeen foretold, or those verses which appear to contradictone another, or seemed to be opposed to absolute mono-theism.Each passage of the Bible to which Ibn Iazm attacheshis criticism is preceded by a literal Arabic translation, orby the interpolation of part of a verse in his reasonings.The question now arises whence did he take his translation?In the majority of passages he evidently followed Saadyah'sversion, but in others he did not do so. To the latter classbelong his versions of Exod. xv4 (beginning only) and

' Fol. 36vo. 2 Fol. Igr0, see App., No. IV.3 Ibn Khall., ibid., HI.ajiKhalifah, I, p. 346 (No. 888).4 See App., No. V.

226


7/20

MOHAMMEDAN CRITICISM OF THE BIBLEDeut. xxxii 1,and it is not unlikely that these were trans-lated for him by one of his Jewish friends in Cordova.But even in many verses taken from Saadyah he didnot adopt his translation blindly, but changed manyparaphrasticrenderings(especially of anthropomorphisticpassages)for more literal ones.I heregive a small selectionof suchpassages:-

Gen.iv. 15., vi. 2.,, Vi. 3,, xviii. 3.,, xxv. 23.

SAADYAH.Vengeancemultiplied.The sons of the great.My self.O friend of God.The fathers of twonations.

IBN HAZM.Vengeance sevenfold.The sons of God.My spirit.My Lord.Two nations.

,, xxxii.27. When the day brokehe said unto him,let me go.,, xxxii. 3I. I have seen the angelof the Lord.

And he said, let mego, for the daybreaketh.I have seen God.

As regards proper nouns, Ibn HJ.azm,ike Saadyah, retainstheir Hebrew spelling, excepting those for which Arabicforms were given in the Qoran or in later works. Hissystem of transliteration into Arabic characters is, however,not quite consistent, as in a few cases he attempted phoneticspelling, as in .:i4, where he replaced sere by an insertedyodh. Writing as he did for learned Arab theologians, thelanguage of his translations is, on the whole, purer thanSaadyah's, whose chief aim was to provide a Targum forArabic-speaking Jews.Ibn Hazm was so convinced that the Bible, as he read it,had been tampered with by the Rabbis, that he reviled itcontinually, and only spoke of it with scorn. On more

Published by M. Schreiner, SemiticStudies(in memory of Dr. Kohut),P. 499 sq.

227


8/20


9/20

MOHAMMEDAN CRITICISM OF THE BIBLEcountry of ZawVla,"a country supposed by Arab geographelrsto be situated in the Suidn 1. Now the next verse statesthat the Jihan surrounds the whole country of IHIabesh,but, says Ibn HIazm, here is no other stream in this wholeterritory except the Nile. Consequently God cannot havesaid that the Nile surrounds Zawila, whilst the Jihan en-compasses Habesh, because the latter river has its sourcesin Rum (probably Asia Minor), and flows into theMediterranean Sea. Another objection made by Ibn Hazmis that there are no pearls (b'dolah) to be found in Zawila,but only in the Persian and Indian seas, and in the riversof India and China.Of special interest are those passages in which Moham-medan readers of the Bible, and Ibn Hazm in particular,fancied they had discovered polytheistic leanings. Thesewere solely due to Rabbinic corruptions, and Ibn Hazmcriticizes them in most acrimonious terms. I shall onlydiscuss three of these, viz. Gen. iii. 22 ("man is becomeone of us "), vi. 2 ("the sons of Elohim "), and Exod. iv. 22("Israel is my son, even my firstborn").In his criticism of the first of these verses, Ibn H.azmobserves that it has led many of the best Jews to believein an intermediate deity2. It is unmistakable that inthe words "best of the Jews" he alludes to Philo, whosetheology he describes as senseless heresy. In his notes onGen. vi. 2, Ibn IHazmcriticizes "one of their sages of thepast," who explains the words ' sons of Elohim" by"angels." Such, however, is Saadyah's translation, andthere can therefore be no doubt that Ibn Hazm had thisin his mind3.Now this touches one of the chief points of contentionbetween Mohammedan and Jewish interpreters of theanthropomorphistic passages of the Bible. The Qoranavoids divine attributes, such as "Father," "Man of war,""Rock," or "Fountain of living waters," and only on one

Cf. Yacut, ed. Wiistenfeld, II, p. I70. 2 See App., No. II.3 Ibid., No. III.

229


10/20

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEWoccasion did Mohammed give way so far as to call Allah'"Light of the heavens and the earth1." He could not,however, dispense with the subordinate anthropomorphism,and described God as speaking, writing, sitting on histhrone which is borne by angels, and even as cunning2.MlIohammedanheologians were at first not a little em-barrassed by such expressions, but finally had the goodsense to explain them as based on imbued doctrines whichwere not to be taken literally. The Zahirites, too, wereforced to take them in an allegorical sense, although thiswas inconsistent with their teachings (App., No. V).Before dealing with Ibn Hazm's criticism of Exod. iv. 22,I should here like to draw attention to the remarksattached to the same verse by one of the brightest Arablitterateurs of a much earlier epoch. This was Amr b. BahrAlJahiz, who lived in Basra, and died in 868. It isexceedingly interesting to observe that not only had thisman already studied the Bible in an Arabic version, but tojudge from one mistranslated passage 3, seems to have triedto translate frormthe original itself. As he lived onehundred years before Saadyah, the few specimens of hisrenditions into Arabic of Biblical verses are the oldest wepossess, and occur in an epistolar treatise styled Refutationof Christianity.The abstract runs as follows:-

They (the Christians)ay: In the Torah he words"Israelis myfirstborn"re to be found,and all that youmentionas emanatingfromus occursin the books (of the Bible), as is well known.Myansweris: On account of their scant knowledgeof the differentmeanings of speech, and their bad and injudicious translation, thepeople employed terms which appealed to their minds. Had theypossessed he mindsof Moslims,andthe know]edgeof what the Arabiclanguage admits, as well as what terms were permissible to beapplied to God,in addition to their mastery of the Hebrew tongue,theywould have found a fine explanation and an easyway out [of thedifficulties] of this term. If they did not deny the attributes (of

Qor. xxiv. 35. 2 e.g. Qor. ii. 256; iii. 47; iv. 69, &c.3 Probably Ps. xci. 8.

230


11/20


12/20


13/20

MOHAMMEDAN CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE 233daughters orphans and my people upset'. I cannot raise them upagain until a prophet comes to whom I will restore my sons anddaughters-and more such language. Know that they have assigneda number of days of October in which they worship a lord who isanother than God. In this they arrive at sheer polytheism. Youshould know that the minor Lord is the one to whom they haveassigned those special days to worship him beside God,is the angelSandalfon,servant of the crown which is on the head of the beingthey adore. This is worse than Christianheresy. I spoke to one ofthem on this subject,and he answered me: Metatr6n is one of theangels, &c.It only now remains for us to inquire into the causeswhich, in Ibn Hazm's opinion, have led the Jews to fallinto such grave errors. His concluding words are asfollows 2:

After several hundred years some people of the house of Aaroncame into power. Sacrificesceased, copies of the Torahwere multi-plied and circulated in the form which the Jews now possess. TheirRabbiscomposedprayersfor them which took the place of sacrifices.The Rabbiscontriveda new religion for them; they built Synagoguesin every place in opposition to the custom upheld during theirindependence,morethan four hundred years. They arrangedgather-ings everySabbathday,as they do now, also in oppositionto previouscustom. For [in those times] they had in their towns no house ofworshipor gathering for religious purposes,nor a place for sacrificesat all, except the Temple alone, or, prior to the Temple, the Tent.This is where the differencelies.The proof3 of this is that they admit to be stated in the Book ofJoshua b. Nun, that the children of Reuben, Gad, and half a tribeof Manassebuilt an altar on their returnfromconqueringthe countrynear the Jordan and Palestine to their own country east of theJordan. Joshuaand the rest of Israel wanted to make war againstthem until they sent them a message, saying: We did not build this[altar]to offerup sacrifices,nor to worshipat all; heaven forbid thatwe shouldfind another place beside that one in which are the tentand the house of God. Thereuponthey let them alone4. But apartfrom this there is sufficient evidence for one who has understandingthat it (the Bible) is altered and full of untruth and apocryphal,asJudaism it is also an apocryphal religion in contrast to the one theyconfessto have receivedfromMoses. Satan himself does not wish to

1 Talmud Berakhoth, fol. 3r0.3 App., No. VI.2 Fol. 56vo.i Joshua xxii. 9 sqq.


14/20


15/20

MOHAMMEDAN CRITICISM OF THE BIBLEabrogation of the Jewish law. I quote the opening pas-sages of these two articles in translation from the Arabicoriginal 1.

"Art. VIII teaches the heavenly origin of the Torah. This impliesthe belief that the whole of this Torah, as it is found in our handsto-day, is the same Torah which was revealed to Moses, and originatesentirely from God.""Art. IX concerning Abrogation: To wit that the Law of Moseshas never been abrogated, nor has there come another Law from God.Nothing was added to the Torah, nor was anything taken away fromit, neither in the text nor in its interpretation."

The object of these sentences is hardly comprehensibleunless taken from the point of view of protest.IIARTWIG HIRSCHFELD.

APPENDIX.I.

Ibn Hazm. Cod. Brit. Mus. Or. 842.Fol. 2ro.

&; j l u..'s ^ ~b1 .1 . i ~L 1 ^Ul o Jls cr0f1^cJb c^' u

JAs jI b- J -JIw j*- sLj Jwl I^a_ -LS

(j^x^J o) jS l d) A.I ) LJ _ ,; LC (1z1w) a_

l~ + s I1rJL AsjUI J .L =

o^JLoj ;*) A. ?31 11 0 1 C9 U^1 Pococke, Porta Mosis, p. 173.

235


16/20

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW't^w L ? 11 ^, AftJi 1 8'9 \ L^ ^^'J\ t I

yj A.~ Jlo A., aUbl1C~b9 Ji cJ. A.~. ~ ~,~? a.IA.1 ?, * .1 .. . 1 A - *SII.

Fol. 4v?. Gen. iii. 22.

Their statement that Godaid "ThisAdam is becomeas one

exists more than one God. Such pernicious theory has led many of

the best Jwsto believe that te God who creted Adam 1s but

a creted being creted by God before Admil. It ws this one whoJl

gf- ,J Js lL|)Uj 3* --^j j lJJSSJI I 1ll L I

JJJITheir statement that God said: "This Adam is become as one ofus)" is most disastrous, since it compels people to believe that thereexists more than one God. Such pernicious theory has led many ofthe best Jews to believe that the God who created Adam was buta created being created by God before Adam. It was this one who

ate from the tree and learned to distinguish between good and evil.Afterwards he ate from the tree of life and became as one of thegods. Heavenforbidsuch absurdheresy,let us praisehim for havingguided us to the brilliant and manifest religion whose integrity fromevery intruding element we testify, coming as it did from God.

III.Fol. 4vo. Gen. vi. 2.

k5 H9s- p^ Jx ^ J ; dJSJOJ lBju^WI y\ JlAL:J1L# NJ5S 1 J 1 . .j ) l 1 i>ijI,^ ,91 d&lL. L?1? ) Jw ? NJJ ,j

236


17/20


18/20

THE JEWISH QUARTERLYREVIEWLA _. 0 ; j j .S 4, 4Pj iJI 14tj

L " ,, d.41)5J1i5 J4 J 41^A r4 ;Then Moses and the children of Israel sang a praise,and this is theSira 1: Praisedbe the Lord by us, for he is mighty and exalted; hehas drowned he horse and its rider in the sea. My Lordis he whohas been [our]saviour,whom I will praise,and the Lord whomI willextol; the Lord who killeth, like the strong man of war. In thefifth Book he says: The Lord is a devouringfire.SaysAbu Mohammed:It is a grievous turpitude to compareAllahto a mighty man, and to say that he is a devouring fire is mostunlucky. One of them (the Jews) asked me concerning this point:"Does not your book (the Qoran)contain the passage, Allah is thelight of the heavens and the earth (Qor.xxiv. 35)?"' I answered:"Yes " But when Abu Darr2 asked the messenger of God,"Hastthou not seen thy Lord?" the latter replied, "I see a light." It is,however,clear that the verse in question does not allude to a visiblefire, but to an invisible one. The meaning of "The light of the

heavens and the earth"-as soon as it is certain that this is nota visible firewhich has a colour-is to describea "light of the heavensand the earth" which guides its inhabitants and nothing else."Light" is one of God's attributes only, as are the words of (thesameverse): "His light is comparedto a lamp ... no firetouched it."God compareshis guiding light to the "lamps" mentioned by him.He likens one created thing to another,as he points out in the wordsthat follow in the same verse: "Light upon light, Allah guideswhomsoeverhe wishes to his light."

VI.Fol. 57ro.

^A^^b J kv,L s I ) ;; I1>L4aj

JP cr (^^ J^j^ S. ^L. OJrN (^ j-? AW^.l^4\1 1u,L l J J JI11 Ljl'jJl which Ibn Hazmevidentlymistook ornrm.2 One of Mohammed'sompanionswho appearsoccasionally o haveshown a certainscepticism.

238


19/20

MOHAMIMEDAN CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE 239JJ.S 4^1 ^^5 ,LJ o.9 (^jJ Jtk1& ^ jJ Att JiS ^*WnE;s tC Xl LgjA~ ox ?~-)S\~i(5r)Uj c,>jJ$ Jj^e


20/20

240 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(so) ^?1iJ9 ^t) uJ )iR^1 3)L. ^ ^ ?^ tA -llj

x J1J4331,J . ) 1 1. 9 S 1j 3r4 1(S?U U2I1 es~1 J ; ^.J1JA . ,,.J 'Y1 11

z1"9i b t dâ?.A )) ^^J . Sig-a 41o 1 A^^x-l) â ^.9lâ~sj e?>.1 IJO 4 csj]l i^' ,2j 4- l^^ JUt^ a

pl&^j iNi ; J^ 61 ; ^)1 j JL^L il1 lsS' ^14(i^.nj1 j^j ^î }l I> îj ^^^--A- I.. o -_>I

S. JJL"^^'JJL^4llJ^^ 9 8 L-= J? >1(J;I; JT ^S

r4^ r#J;^4i^. ^L C4^^'s fJ ;*S J ^-4^ (

r > ftj r4 aS Al'9

?? o *l;i's~5"t ~LU I , '? lj~Jg,zw WB JI lV s, I~fj

mohammedan criticism of the bible (1901)

Documents