For Plato and the Bible in the Qur'an

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Feb 19, 2007 at 07:01

I study history so I approach any text as a document, nothing more and nothing less. And because the Qur'an is such a badly edited book, one must take each aya as a recension. So you really cannot take only one aya without understanding the whole genre of exegesis called the Muslim masora.

The idea of _tahrif_ or corruption of srcipture is nothing new to Semites. It is an old polemic used by various sects, even in the same religion (Samaritans v Jews, Nestorians v Jacobites etc...) but in this case it takes on a Muslim/Judeo-Christian type of polemic and as usual the polemic is: "you are corrupting the word of God as was revealed to you."

Take the case of al-nasikh wa al-mansukh (abrogation) which was more likely than not a repsonse to a similar polemic by Jews and Christians (this must be placed as suggested in QS in Mesopotamia and Iran and very much posterior to the death of Muhammad in 632CE) that God would not change his mind.

Now notice that the sira and the hadith do not help us that much in sorting out this polemic as they are not independent historical sources about both must be seen as antoher form of Quranic tafseer of the Quranic logias and pericopes.

As I already said, I'm only scratching the surface of this polemic. So for Qur'an 2:174 the word you are talking about is yaktumu. Now if you study history you must read the text in its primary language and do not assume anything.

Now let us see the word yaktumu's root is KTM and the word yaktumu means to hide, to conceal or to keep secret or: They hide/conceal/keep secret. (see Hans Wehr page 814B)

Again it is the same old polemic. So notice that in this aya (recension):

1. The author does not use the word yuharafo or they corrupt.

2. The author uses the word yuktumo or they hide/conceal/keep secret.

3. This means that the Jews/Christians did not harafu (P.T of yuharafu) the Tawrat wa al-injeel. They only concealed what is in it and for this see QS.

4. Notice also the rasm of the word al-KTB. it was read by the masorites (see 1923-1924 Cairo edition of the Qur'an) as: al-Kitaabi or the book and not books (Kaf with a kasra, teh, and then an added alif that does not exist in the rasm and who says that the Qur'an is not an edited book, beh with a kasra) or the book. But this does not make sense as the word should be books (more later) as the Qur'an really tells us, but never defines, about two books: al-tawart wa al-injeel. So you and I should not guess which book is that because this does not become study of history anymore.

The word al-KTB could also be read as: al-Kutub. Just add a damma to the kaf, a damma to the teh, and a sukun to the beh. Now we have the plural of al-kitab

5. Even if the word is al-Kutub or books this does not mean that these books are the Tawrat wa al-injeel.

Now welcome to the confused world of the Qur'an!...

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".