El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
Tahrif (Arabic: تحريف "corruption, forgery"; the stem-II verbal noun of the consonantal root ḥrf, "to make oblique") is an Arabic term used by Muslims with regard to words, and more specifically with regard to what Islamic tradition supposes Jews and Christians to have done to their respective Scriptures. Most Muslims (excepting groups such as the Mu'tazili and Ismaili sects as well as a few Islamic scholars and members of various liberal movements within Islam) believe that Jews and Christians have deliberately changed the text of the Jewish Torah and the Christian Bible, through altering words from their proper meaning, changing words in form, or substituting words or letters for others. This is considered by Islam to be a deliberate change which distorted the word of God, and which thus necessitated the giving of the Qur'an to Muhammad, to correct this perceived distortion. Such substitution is also termed tabdīl "alteration, substitution" (from the root bdl "substitute"), a wider term used also in other contexts, but in the Qur'an and later literature practically synonymous with tahrif (e.g. Commentaries of Mudjahid b. Djabr Al-makki). The doctrine of tarif is central to the Islamic faith because the Qu'ran explicitly validates the Jewish and Christian texts[1][2][3][4], yet the Qu'ran is very different to the other texts.
[edit] Qur'an and the doctrine of tahrifThe Qur'an accepts books known as the Tawrat (the Torah, or perhaps the entire Hebrew Bible), Zabur (the Book of Psalms) and the Injil (the Gospels, or perhaps the entire New Testament) as genuine divine revelations taken from the same Guarded Tablets as the Qur'an itself and brought by true messengers to both Jews and Christians respectively. Although the Qu'ran never explicity says so, Muslim tradition reads the Qur'an as accusing the Jews of having deliberately altered the Torah and the rest of Hebrew Bible, and Christians of deliberately altering the New Testament.[citation needed] The Qur'an does not specify exactly which parts are meant, however they are usually considered to be the places where the Qur'an and the Bible differ. Relevant verses on which the doctrine of tahrif is based are (Yusuf Ali translation):
The Qur'an also contains different narratives of several Biblical historical accounts and stories. Muslims have commonly used the distortion of the text doctrine to justify these differences. See Biblical narratives and the Qur'an for further details about the difference in narratives. [edit] Types of TahrifAmin Ahsan Islahi writes about four types of Tahrif:[5]
[edit] Origin of tahrifThe relevant Qu'ranic verses, if indeed referring to the alteration of biblical text, do not state explicitly how the alteration of the various biblical texts was done and when, but later commentaries give various explanations:
[edit] Tahrif in the first centuries of IslamIn early Islam, tahrif was limited to an understanding that the holy books were misinterpreted for immoral purposes.[citation needed] There was no belief that the texts themselves of the Torah or Injil were changed.[citation needed] This early belief also contradicts the modern, popular belief that the books were misinterpreted through centuries of innocent and accidental mistranslation and copy errors. Originally, Muslims believed tahrif only occurred by a few Jews done purposefully. Therefore, the text of the Torah was the very same as the text of the Tawrat and the Gospels the same as the Injil. However, few Muslims read the Torah or Gospels because the Qur'an was considered by the pious to be vastly superior. Early scholars known to support the lack of change of the Tawrat and Injil are Ibn al-Layth, Ibn Rabban, Ibn Qutayba, Al-Ya'qubi, Al-Tabari, Al-Baqillani, Al-Ma'sudi.[6] Several different ideas existed as to the motivation of tahrif:
[edit] Ibn HazmThe personality of Ezra becomes very involved in the polemics in the 10th century, and especially with Ibn Hazm, an Andalusian savant, who explicitly accused Ezra of having falsified and added interpolations into the Biblical text. The theme of tahrif found its first detailed elaboration in the writings of Ibn Hazm. He also arranged systematically and in scholarly detail the arguments against the authenticity of the Biblical text in the first (Tanakh) and second part (New Testament) of his book: chronological and geographical inaccuracies and contradictions; theological impossibilities (anthropomorphic expressions, stories of fornication and whoredom, and the attributing of sins to prophets), as well as lack of reliable transmission (tawatur) of the text. He explains how the falsification of the Torah could have taken place while there existed only one copy of the Torah kept by the Aaronic priesthood of the Temple in Jerusalem. Ibn Hazm’s impact on later Muslim polemics was great, and the themes which he raised with regard to tahrif and other polemical ideas were updated only slightly by some later authors.[7][8][9] [edit] Criticism of Tahrif
The doctrine of tahrif has undergone heavy criticism by both religious and secular scholars alike. The main objection to tahrif is that archaeological records, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls validate the entire Torah, confirming that the Old Testament of the Bible we have today has not been intentionally altered since at least 200 B.C.[1] [2], and presumably the same text that must have been circulating at the time of Muhammed over 800 years later. With respect to the New Testament, it has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,400 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian, the earliest fragments of which date back to c. 125 AD [3]. Thus the criticism is that since the Bible today is essentially the same as it was well before the time of Muhammed, the claim of Tahrif is unfounded from an archaeological perspective. If the Old Testament & New Testament were to be corrupted as the Tahrif claims, then one must postulate a miracle of conspiracy to change all the several Scriptural texts in various manuscripts and translations which is next to impossible. [edit] Qur'an and the claim of the corruption of the text itself
Some[who?] claim that above explanations are against the Qur'an itself, since it states that the Tawrat and Injil were known by Jesus (5:110) "Then will God say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel (..)". Furthermore the Qur'an states that those who follow the Law and the Gospel have to stand fast by them and that both the Law and the Gospels are revelations from God. The conclusion that could be drawn from this, since it not possible to stand fast by something when it is not known or altered, that the text of biblical texts were at least in the time of Mohammed not corrupted according to the Qur'an (5:68-69) Islamic scholars, such as Gary Miller, believe that Qur'an criticizes the handling of scripture by some Jews and Christians rather than their holy books. According to Gary Miller, Qur'an only makes the following three accusations[4]:
[edit] Early refutationAmong the earliest Christian documents on Islam in retrospect are the letter Maximus the Confessor wrote between the year 634 and 640 to Peter the Illustrious and the three writings of Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. 639) ranging from 634 till 637. Absent from these writings is any sense that the Arabs were spurred by a new religion. The argument of tahrif is also refuted in an early polemical text attributed to the Byzantine Emperor Leo III[11] with the statement that Jews and Christians share the same, widely-known divine text, and that Ezra, the covenantal architect of the Second Temple, was a pious, reliable person. The same arguments appear in later Jewish writings. [edit] Critical views on Mohammed's reference to the BibleAccording to some scholars on the field of Middle East studies,[who?] 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.[who?] 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.[12] [edit] Christian and Jewish response to tahrifChristians and Jews deny that any person or group ever committed tahrif to their scriptures. They note that none of the teachings that Muslims believe were removed from the scripture are found in the most ancient scriptural manuscripts.[who?] Christians and Jews readily discuss that biblical manuscripts have textual variants. The entire study of biblical textual criticism has been devoted to this. These variants exist most often as misspellings, grammatical mistakes, and the existent of two similar words. The substantial changes of theology and narration that tahrif describes have not been found. Certain English-speaking Roman Catholics who use the old Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible claim that the King James Version (the most common Protestant translation) was created using corrupted Greek and Hebrew texts, and that the Douay-Rheims, being a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate, created from unadulterated Greek and Hebrew texts available in the fourth century, is purer than the King James. The historical biblical archaeological record appears to refute accusations of tahrif because the Dead Sea Scrolls (a variety of Jewish texts written before the 1st century CE, among them the earliest known Hebrew versions of the Tanakh) have been fully translated,[13] for the greater part validating the authenticity of both the Hebrew Masoretic Text, used by Judaism and many Christian demoninations, and the Greek Septuagint, the version of the Old Testament used by the Eastern Orthodox Church.[14] In addition, the historical era in which the earliest extant versions of the New Testament were compiled is so close to the time period of the events that they discuss (less than a hundred years), that many scholars, both Christian and secular, would find the idea of such a massive textual and topical distortion as alleged by charges of tahrif to be unfounded.[15] [edit] Sunni Islam, Shi'a Islam, and claims of tahrif regarding the Qu'ranAccording to Shmuel Bar, some Sunni classical religious literature contains accusations that "The Shiites have a Qur’an that includes verses (Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn) which are not in the Sunni Qur’an and that were forged in order to justify Ali’s right to succession. In doing so, the Shiites distort the Qur’an (tahrif)". It is also claimed that the Shiites have forged hadiths in order to justify their doctrines."[16] In “Kashf-ul-Irtiyab fe Radd Fasl-el-Khitab” (i.e., Exposing Suspicion in Answering the Decisive Speech) has transmitted a group of quotations by eminent Shiite scholars concerning the textual authenticity of the Qur’an, he quotes the scholars:
These are the quotations of some of the most authentic Shi'i scholars: Shaikh Saduq:
Shaykh Tusi or Shaykh al-Ta’ifah (i.e., Authority of the Sect):
The above two Suras are considered as a forgery and do not appear in the Shia published Qur'ans. Shia Muslims consider the accusation that they are using a different Qur'an as one of the misconceptions about the Shi'a. However, all the Qur'ans published in all the Shi'a countries such as Iran are the same as those published in Sunni countries. Shi’ites recite the Qur’an according to the Qira’t of Hafs on authority of ‘Asim which is the prevalent Qira’t in the Islamic world.[21] [edit] Other claimsSome Muslims have also pointed that the different denominations have different Bible versions and do not agree regarding their canon. With more manuscripts with no two copies that agree completely in their wording being studied by scholars, many passages in the Bible are generally acknowledged as interpolations. Examples include:
[edit] Notes
[edit] External links
[edit] See alsoPágina espejo de la WikipediaDirectorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo |
