The Qurʾān and the Bible: Abrogation (naskh) or Confirmation (taṣdīq)?

Abstract

Two Qurʾānic concepts have largely defined how the Qurʾān related to previous revelations. Those two concepts are taḥrīf (alteration) and naskh (abrogation). Appealing to those two concepts, the mainstream understating of the Qurʾān was that it superseded pre-Islamic scriptures and that, after its revelation, such scriptures had limited epistemic value. With this in mind, this article aims to achieve descriptive and prescriptive goals. With the descriptive goal, it problematizes the theories of taḥrīf and naskh, with a view to showing how such concepts influenced Muslim understanding of the Straight Path (al-Ṣirāṭ al-mustaqīm). With the prescriptive goal, it proposes the concept of taṣdīq (confirmation) as an alternative. In doing so, this article demonstrates how, despite the fact that the Qurʾān never shied away from critiquing what it believes to be forms of deviation in the Bible, it never introduced itself as an “abrogator” (nāsikh) to it but rather as a “confirmer” (muṣaddiq) in no less than 12 occurrences in the Qurʾān, but the concept of taṣdīq was largely overshadowed by the overemphasis on taḥrīf and naskh.

1. Caveat

While at first glance this article seems more fitting for a journal that deals with hermeneutics and methods of exegesis, the article considers itself of a philosophical character. This is for two reasons. Firstly, it addresses taḥrīf and naskh, not as exegetical devices in the first place, but rather as analytical tools. Secondly, it highlights the “inconsistencies” of the classical analytical tools of taḥrīf and naskh and proposes the tool of taṣdīq for the maintenance of the Qurʾānic philosophical narrative. Grappling with such analytical tools and being concerned with “consistency” are of primary interest to analytic theology in its two modes: procedural and substantive, as explained in my previous article, i.e., The Qurʾān and the Future of Islamic Analytic Theology. Therefore, this article contributes to the project of the philosophy of the Qurʾān put forward in the above article and lays down the scriptural foundations for it.

2. Introduction

An interesting fact about the Qurʾān is that it does not speak of the status of previous scriptures/religions in one voice; it rather ranges between tendering a positive position: other times it presents a negative one, and it still in others introduces a value-neutral position (see Saleh 2016, p. 413; Whittingham 2021, pp. 25–27). Despite this diversity of voices, the majority of Qurʾānic verses imply a positive view of the scriptures given to Jews and Christians, whereas a lesser number of verses presents the more negative image on account of textual corruption or alteration in the Bible, which is commonly known as taḥrīf.

In this context, the concept of abrogation (naskh), which is essentially the cancellation of earlier scriptures by Islamic revelation, and that of (takhṣīṣ), which is the qualification of generic verses by more particular devices, gained currency and found some epistemic legitimacy. That is to say that the positive verses described above were often restricted through one of two mechanisms: (1) subscribing to the theory of naskh, arguing that the positive verses were abrogated by the more negative ones; or (2) specifying the generality of the positive verses. An example of this is how many mufassirūn (Qurʾān commentators) dealt with Q. 2:62, which reads: “Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans—those who believed in God and the Last Day and did good—will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve”. Applying the first mechanism, the verse was understood to be abrogated by Q. 3:85, which states: “And whoever desires other than Islam as religion—never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers”. Using the second mechanism, the generality of Q. 2:62 was specified by saying that the acknowledged Christians and Jews here are only those who adhered to these religions before the advent of Islam, but when Islam came, they abandoned their traditions and followed Islam’s Straight Path (see McAuliffe 1991, pp. 93–128). Sahih International Qurʾān translation, which is one of the most used translations, reflects this. The translation renders: “Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad]–those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness–will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve”. We can see in the translation how two qualifying phrases were inserted to limit the fluid positivity of the verse.

While there is, as John Burton put it, “an appalling degree of muddle” regarding the scope and meaning of abrogation in the Qurʾān (Burton 1985, p. 452), there is one type of abrogation over which there is little dispute among Muslim scholars (Ahmad Hasan 1965, p. 184). That is, “external naskh”, which refers, as previously indicated, to the abrogation of the Old and New Testaments by the Qurʾān. Having said that, the concepts of taḥrīf and naskh occupy us in the first section of this article and then a discussion on taṣdīq as an alternative follows.

Problematizing taḥrīf as an analytical tool

In numerous places, the Qurʾān speaks of the concept of taḥrīf (Arabic: تحريف, transl. “alternation” or “distortion”), which refers to the alterations that are deemed to have been introduced to the previous revelations of God—specifically those that make up the Tawrāt (or Torah), the Zabur (or Psalms), and the Injīl (or Gospel). Taḥrīf has two key modes to it. Firstly, taḥrīf lafdhī (textual alteration), which indicates that the followers of those traditions have literally altered the wording of their scripture. Secondly, taḥrīf al-maʿnā (interpretational alteration), which is used to refer to what Muslims consider to be the corrupted Jewish and Christian interpretations of revelations of God. As it is, the key difference between the two modes is that the second usage does not hold that the previous revelations of God were altered in text, but rather in interpretation.

However, several early Muslim commentaries on the Qur’ān considered the Bible as a source of religious authority and attestation while, at the same time, highlighting uncertainty and suspicion about how Jews and Christians handled it. For example, Ibn Qutayba (d. 889), who was a renowned judge in ninth-century Baghdad, regularly cited the Bible across his writings. In his historical compendium, The Book of Noteworthy Information (Kitāb al-Maʿ ārif), he begins his work with various quotations coming from Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. Ibn Qutayba was not an exception, but actually more of a norm in the first four centuries of Islam. For instance, al-Ṭabarī (d. 923) seems to have shared the view that taḥrīf was not in the text of the previous revelations, but in the interpretations of the Jews and Christians, leading him to refer to the Jewish Torah in his words as “the Torah that they possess today” (Adang 1996, p. 231).

More recent scholarship on the formative period of the Islamic tradition accentuates such important observations. Gordon Nickel tells us in his Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’ān, and Martin Whittingham in his A History of Muslim Views of the Bible: The First Four Centuries, how this open position was common in early Islam, challenging today’s popular perception that early Muslims wholeheartedly subscribed to the theory of abrogation and alteration without any qualification.

In his Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages, Mark R. Cohen shows that the concept of textual taḥrīf was chiefly popularized through the influential writings of the eleventh-century Andalusian polymath Ibn Ḥazm (d. 1064) (Cohen 1994, p. 146). In his Kitāb al-Faṣl fi’l-milal wa’l-ahwā’ wa’l-niḥal (The Book of the Distinction regarding Religions, Sects and Heresies), Ibn Ḥazm highlighted several logical, theological, chronological, and geographical errors in the Bible, most notably anthropomorphic portrays of God, and occurrences of unbefitting behavior such as the venereal intercourse between Lot and his two daughters. Instead, he rejected claims of Mosaic authorship of the Torah and posited that Ezra was in effect its key author, apart from the lack of reliable transmission (tawātur) of the text (Ibn Ḥazm 1996, vol. 1, pp. 201–91). In this work, Ibn Ḥazm primarily intended to critique the more lenient view, which reduces taḥrīf to being one of interpretation, as opposed to being one of texts as well (Whittingham 2021, p. 153).

Ibn Ḥazm’s position on the Biblical tradition seems to have found a listening ear and his view on the textual taḥrīf seems to have had a sizable impact upon Muslims’ reception of the Judeo-Christian tradition, especially from the modern perspective (Whittingham 2021, pp. 160–61). To illustrate the ubiquity of Ibn Ḥazm’s, Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s popular translation of the Qurʾān may attest to this. Of the Torah, he said: “it was lost before Islam was preached. What passed as ‘The Law’ with the Jews in the Apostle’s time was the mass of traditional writing” (Ali 1937, p. 285). Of the Gospel, he wrote:

The Injil (Greek, Evangel = Gospel) spoken of by the Qurān is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive (e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St. Barnabas, etc.

(Ali 1937, p. 287)

Problematizing naskh

Closely linked to the question of taḥrīf and probably a concomitant of it is the theory, or perhaps doctrine, of naskh (abrogation). Naskh began initially and primarily as a nullification of the law of Moses by the Qurʾān. However, with the passage of time, it was expanded and extended. It was expanded to include both Judaism and Christianity as a whole, and was extended to the Islamic revelation itself, whereby it was taken for granted as a valid tool that has the capacity to reconcile the apparent tensions and contradictions between various Qurʾānic verses. It then expanded further to include the Sunna, wherein several scholars argued that the Sunna also had the capacity to abrogate Qurʾānic verses when there are internal contradictions (see Saeed 2006, pp. 77–90). However, what is of relevance to us here is external abrogation.

Many Muslim scholars accepted prima face Islam’s abrogation of Judaism and Christianity. For instance, ʿAbd al-Malik al-Juwaynī (d. 1085) devoted an entire chapter of his al-Irshād ilā qawāṭiʿ al-adillah (A Guide to Conclusive Proofs) to the theory of abrogation, wherein he responded to the Jews who reject the Muslim theory of abrogation on account of the selective way in which Muslims use it. That is, Jews claim that Muslim theologians do not apply the theory of abrogation to their own tradition. When the Jews ask Muslims, “What proof do you draw on to establish the continuity of your Law?”, they respond that this is what the Prophet Muhammad has informed us. The Jews then say: Our Prophet (Moses) did the same; he informed us that his Law is not to be superseded. Al-Juwaynī responded with two objections. Firstly, if their claim was true, God would not have revealed Himself with the miracles of Jesus and Muhammad who came after Moses, yet since there were miracles after Moses, the Jews’ tradition of abrogation is invalidated. Secondly, if the Torah truly says that there is no prophet to come after Moses, why did those Jews who were contemporaneous with Muhammad not show him this in their Scripture, even though they were deeply keen on falsifying his prophethood? The fact that they did not do so questions the authenticity of their report (al-Juwaynī 2009, pp. 271–72).

The combination of taḥrīf and naskh led to several theological repercussions. Chief amongst these repercussions is that Judaism and Christianity began to be seen as crooked ways that are not valid as authentic paths to God anymore. Hence, Islam, more particularly the Qurʾān alone, was understood as the locus of the concept of the Straight Path (al-Ṣirāṭ al-mustaqīm). The straightness of the Islamic path was often understood in relation to the crooked and altered ways of Jews and Christians. Qurʾān commentators largely understood the references to the Straight Path in the Qurʾān as a reference to Islam, the religion of truth that keeps its followers away from deviation and shields them from crookedness. In his Qurʾān exegesis, known as Taʾwīlāt ahl al-sunnah, Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (d. 944) stated that commentators differed as to what is meant by the Straight Path in Q. 1:6–7, which read: “-6- Guide us to the straight path -7- the path of those You have blessed, those who incur no anger and who have not gone astray”. While some said the sixth verse refers to the Qurʾān itself, others said it refers to Islam in general or īmān (faith). He added that mustaqīm either means that the Qurʾān itself is straight, or that it is the book through which one is made straight. As for the seventh verse, he stated that the most popular view links the first group with the Jews “those with God’s wrath” and the second with the Christians “those who are misled” (al-Māturīdī 2004, vol. 1, pp. 10–11).

Even though Abū ʿAbdullāh al-Qurṭubī (d. 1272) showed that there are minority interpretations that link those references to the disbelievers and the hypocrites instead, he highlighted that the vast majority of Qurʾān exegetes interpreted those verses in the light of a ḥadīth that says, “The Jews are those who God is wrathful with, and the Christians are those who have gone astray”. In his own words:

The majority opinion is that those with wrath on them are the Jews and the misguided are the Christians. That was interpreted by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, in the ḥadīth of ʿAdī b. Ḥātim and the story of how he became a Muslim, transmitted by Abū Dāwūd in his Musnad and al-Tirmidhī in his Jāmiʿ (two collections of ḥadīth). The interpretation is also attested to by the Almighty [i.e., elsewhere in the Qurʾān] who says about the Jews, “They brought down anger from God upon themselves” ([Qurʾān] 2:61, 3:112) and He [God] says, “God is angry with them” (48:6). He says about the Christians that they, “were misguided previously and have misguided many others, and are far from the right way ([Qurʾān] 2:61, 3:112).

(al-Qurṭubī 2006, vol. 1, pp. 230–31)

In their Tafsīr al-Jalālayn (exegesis of the two Jalāls: Jalāl al-Dīn al-Maḥallī (d. 1460) and Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 1505)), both authors reiterated the same narrative. In the words of al-Maḥallī, “It [verse 6] is followed by its appositive [in verse 7], ‘…the Path of those You have blessed,’ with guidance, ‘not of those with wrath upon them,’ who are the Jews, ‘nor of the misguided,’ who are the Christians (al-Maḥallī and Jalāl al-Dīn 2003, p. 1). Mystical Qurʾān exegeses had affinities with the preceding interpretations. Aḥmad ibn ʿAjībah (d. 1809), in his al-Baḥr al-madīd fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-majīd, largely followed the interpretations of the preceding scholars. That is, he identified the blessed ones with Muslims, those with God’s wrath with the Jews, and those who are misled with Christians (Ibn ʿAjībah 1999, vol. 1, pp. 65–66).

The expansion and extension of the doctrine of naskh naturally led to a scholarly disagreement over the actual occurrences of naskh in the Qurʾān, and the distinction that is drawn between actual naskh, and cases of specification of the general (takhṣīṣ al-ʿāmm). That is to say that various instances of naskh could be merely amounting to no more than takhṣīṣ, as opposed to blatant abrogation (Kamali 1996, pp. 13–14). Hence, because of such disagreements and the lack of evidence that certain verses which were said to be abrogators were revealed “after” those that were said to be abrogated, the claims of several hundred cases of naskh were eventually and gradually examined and reduced by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 1505) to about 30 occurrences in the whole Qurʾān, and then by Shāh Walīullāh Dehlawī (d. 1762) who included only 5 verses (Kamali 1996, pp. 13–14).

Such critical views were preceded by some bolder precedents and successors who disregarded the entire theory of naskh wholeheartedly. Concerning the precedents, the early fourth-century commentator of the Qurʾān, Abū Muslim al-Iṣfahānī (d. 934), argued that naskh had no place in the Qurʾān whatsoever, contending that all the claimed cases of naskh were in effect cases of takhṣīṣ. Even earlier, the eponymous founder of the Shāfiʿī school of law, Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī (d. 820), seems to have been alert to the essential tension between the theory of naskh and the timeless validity of the Qurʾān. This prompted him to put forward the view that naskh was primarily a form of clarification (bayān) of ambiguous verses through clear ones, rather than an abrogation of one by another (Kamali 1996, pp. 13–14). As for the successors, Muhammad ʿAbduh (d. 1905) stands as an archetypal example of a Qurʾān exegete that can make sense of the Qurʾān without falling into the intricacies and arbitrariness of the theory of naskh (Abdelnour 2021, pp. 140–44).

In this context, Q. 16:101 and 2:106 are home to the most central verses that have often been taken to endorse the theory of abrogation. Q. 16:101 reads, “When We exchange a verse in place of (another) verse—and God knows what He sends down—they say, ‘You are only a forger!’ No! But most of them do not know”. A quick look into the historical context of this verse quickly reveals that it can barely be used as an endorsement to the theory of abrogation. Drawing on works of asbāb al-nuzūl (occasions of revelation), Sheikh Moḥammad al-Ghazālī al-Saqqā (d. 1996) showed that this verse has nothing to do with abrogation as such. He wrote: “They used to say that Muhammad made fun of his Companions, giving them an order to do something today and forbidding them to do the same thing next day; giving them what is easier”. Challenging this interpretation, al-Ghazālī reminds us that chapter 16, The Bees, was revealed in Mecca, where no earlier revelation was cancelled or replaced by another that was neither more difficult nor easier. Appealing to the historical context, al-Ghazālī adds that there is no reference in the Prophet’s life to any objection by the unbelievers or any question by believers to do with abrogation whatsoever. He puts it this way: “We conclusively say that none of the unbelievers in Mecca entertained any thought of what some Qurʾān commentators take to be the reason for the revelation of this verse” (al-Ghazālī 2005, p. 202).

As for Q 2:106, it states, “Whatever verse We cancel or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better (one) than it, or similar to it. Do you not know that God is powerful over everything?” The first thing that strikes us here is that there is a form of arbitrariness in how the word āyah (آية) in the two verses was taken to mean a literal Qurʾānic verse (a piece of Qurʾānic revelation), when Arabic lexical dictionaries tell us that the word is a homonym that has various meanings (Cowan 1976, p. 36). While its primary meaning is a divine sign/sign of God, the word holds nine other possible meanings: 1. proof/evidence; 2. miracle/portent; 3. exemplar/symbol; 4. revelation/message; 5. teachings/instructions; 6. Qurʾānic verse; 7. lesson; 8. glory/wonder; 9. spell (Badawi and Haleem 2008, pp. 68–69). Hence, interpreting the word āyah here as necessarily indicating a Qurʾānic verse involves a form of arbitrariness.

Furthermore, the context (siyāq) of Q. 2:106 was not duly considered. That is to say that most Qurʾān commentators seem to have interpreted this verse out of context, paying little to no attention to the prior-text (sibāq), nor the post-text (liḥāq). Here, two types of prior-text can be introduced to explain what is meant by the term naskh in this verse. Firstly, “textual prior-text”; secondly, “historical prior-context”. The “textual prior-text” here refers to the verses that precede the verse in question. A quick perusal of Q. 2:105 shows that it has nothing to do with the theory of abrogation in its technical sense. As for the historical prior-context, it refers to the verse’s historical occasion of revelation, which, in our case, corresponds with an occasion in the time of the Prophet Muhammad detailed in Q. 4:153, which states: “The People of the Book demand that you [Prophet] make a book physically come down to them from heaven, but they demanded even more than that of Moses when they said, (Show us God face to face)”. Reading Q. 2:106 in the light of Q. 4:153, one may safely argue that the Qurʾān here comforts Muslims who were being doubted by the Jews’ claim that Muhammad does not have a physical miracle. Therefore, Q. 2:106 lays down the foundations of God’s Law of miracles, stating that any physical miracle we cause to be superseded or forgotten, we replace with a better or similar, i.e., nonphysical miracle (the Qurʾān), and not a Qurʾānic verse as is often assumed.

Furthermore, what may confirm this interpretation is that the post-text fits this narrative perfectly, as the following verses talk about the Jews constantly asking Moses for supernatural miracles, most notably seeing God Himself, as in Q. 2.55. With this in mind, we may safely surmise that verse Q. 2:106 can in no way establish the doctrine of abrogation in any categorical sense. Al-Ghazālī adds that taking this verse as an endorsement of the theory of abrogation “disconnects the verse from what comes before it and what comes after it. It actually makes it irrelevant to the general context of this chapter, which begins by taking the people of earlier revelations to task for not accepting Muhammad as a prophet and condemning their asking of him to produce supernatural miracles of the type given to Jewish Prophets familiar to them” (al-Ghazālī 2005, p. 204). To endorse his position, al-Ghazālī quoted along passage from ʿAbduh, which is worth citing here. ʿAbduh wrote:

The correct interpretation that goes in harmony with the context in its entirety is that the word āyah here refers to the proofs God gives to Prophets to support their claim of prophethood. Thus, “Any revelation We cancel” means “A sign We give in support of anyone’s prophethood”. We may later get it replaced, without using it to support another Prophet, or We may consign it to oblivion so that people completely forget it. It is because We have unlimited ability and control over the universe that We bring instead something better and more convincing in confirming prophethood, or at least something of equal effect.

(al-Ghazālī 2005, pp. 204–5)

ʿAbduh’s view on naskh had a serious impact on how he viewed the Bible as a source of guidance that is in sync with the Qurʾān. In a letter of thanks that he wrote to Isaac Taylor (who was Canon of York in late Victorian England and delivered a speech in 1888 clarifying the true doctrines of Islam to British Christians), he said:

You are the first religious leader to proclaim the truth with the people of his religion; you will find supporters for you, and many people of understanding will find in your position marks of truth. This matter that you have done is of great benefits; plentiful returns, and we perceive that it will move the souls of the people of the two religions [Christianity and Islam] to meet on the path of true unity. Even if you are only one, [know that] everything begins with one, then it multiplies until it is countless. If this plant produced its offshoots today, continued efforts will proceed until it grows firmer and stand upon their stalks, delighting its sowers. We anticipate that the Torah, the Gospel and the Qurʾān will become harmonious, reconciled scrolls, studied by the children of both religions [Christianity and Islam], revered by the masters of the two faiths, so that God’s light is perfected in His earth, and His religion of truth will manifest over all religions.

(ʿImārah 1993, vol. 2, p. 356; Taylor 1888, p. 129)

Unpacking this quotation, ʿAbduh makes several points as to how the Qurʾān relates to the Bible. Firstly, he does not necessarily see inherent contradictions between the three scared books (The Torah, the Gospel, and the Qurʾān). Secondly, his understanding of Islam and truth is broad enough to consider Christianity a monotheistic faith that is not anti-Islam, but rather essentially at sync with it. Thirdly, ʿAbduh uses a Qurʾānic phrase (i.e., the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, وَدِینِ ٱلۡحَقِّ لِیُظۡهِرَهُۥ عَلَى ٱلدِّینِ كُلِّهِ) in his letter, a phrase that is often taken to mean Islam’s triumph over Christianity and Judaism. This indicates that he takes Christianity and Judaism as part of the religion that God will cause its prevalence before the end of time, in accordance with Q. 84:28, which states “It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion. And sufficient is God as Witness”.

Taṣdīq (confirmation) as an alternative

Having looked into theory of abrogation and its intricacies, the question arises: What is the alternative? How should the Qurʾān then relate to the Bible? In the following lines, I propose the concept of taṣdīq (confirmation) as an alternative analytical tool. Taṣdīq is proposed for several reasons. Firstly, despite its frequent mention in the Qurʾān, it barely received the attention it deserves as an analytical tool and abrogation was prioritized as a definer of the Qurʾān’s relation to the Bible. Secondly, while abrogation is surrounded by many ambiguities in terms of its meaning as well as its applications, taṣdīq is free from such intricacies and its meaning is evident. For us to appreciate this, it is worth quoting the 12 evident occurrences of the concept in the Qurʾān and some of its derivatives. According to their sequence in the Qurʾān, they are as follows:

2:41   And believe in what I have sent down confirming (muṣaddiqa) that which is [already] with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And do not exchange My signs for a small price, and fear [only] Me.

That the Qurʾān confirms that which Jews and Christians have with them is usually understood to be the Torah and the Gospel. With this in mind, it can mean either that the Qurʾān endorses the validity and teachings of those books or that it considers itself a fulfilment of the foretelling of the Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood, which is believed to be mentioned in those books. However, the first interpretation seems more befitting for the context, as the second interpretation “would turn the verse into a kind of imperative, as it implies that the Torah and Gospel demand faith in the Prophet” (Nasr et al. 2015, p. 136).

2:89   And when there came to them a Book from God confirming (muṣaddiqa) that which was with them—although before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved—but when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of God will be upon the disbelievers.

The book confirming that which is with them refers to the Qurʾān. As for praying for victory, al-Ṭabarī (d. 923) and al-Rāzī (d. 1210) related that before Muhammad’s prophethood, the Medinan Jews used to pray, “O God send this prophet we find written of in our [book], so that we can punish the idolaters and slaughter them”, but they then denied him when he was sent, because he was not of the Israelites (al-Ṭabarī 1994, vol. 1, p. 290; al-Rāzī 1981, vol. 3, p. 194). Al-Rāzī adds that some commentators believe that “that which they recognized” could also mean “that which they knew” or “that which they were acquainted with”, which is based, not on a detailed description of the Prophet Muhammad, but rather from a general understanding of his attributes (al-Rāzī 1981, vol. 3, pp. 194–95).

2:97   Say, “Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel—it is [none but] he who has brought the Qurʾān down upon your heart, [O Muhammad], by permission of God, confirming (muṣaddiqa) that which was before it and as guidance and good tidings for the believers”.

According to Ibn Kathīr (d. 1373), one of the accounts of this verse has the companion ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 644) visiting the Jews while they were studying the Torah, saying that he does so because he enjoys experiencing the mutual confirmation of the Torah and the Qurʾān. However, he was astonished when he was told that they believe that Muhammad is a prophet, but they do not follow him because they are “at peace” with some angels but not with others, and Gabriel belongs to the latter class. Upon coming back to talk to the Prophet, he was informed that this verse has already been revealed (Ibn Kathīr 1999, vol. 1, pp. 339–40).

2:101   And when a messenger from God came to them confirming (muṣaddiqa) that which was with them, a party of those who had been given the Scripture threw the Scripture of God behind their backs as if they did not know [what it contained].

Al-Qurṭubī (d. 1272) tells us while some commentators believed that what is meant by casting the Book of God behind their backs is the Torah, others argue that it could also refer to the Qurʾān, given its confirmation of the prophethood of Muhammad and that the Qurʾān in its turn asserts that there were clear signs and evident proofs of his prophethood existing in the Torah (al-Qurṭubī 2006, vol. 2, p. 268–69).

3:3-4   He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming (muṣaddiqa) what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

First thing to notice here is that the first part of the fourth verse should be read as continuous with the third. Al-Ṭabarī relates that those verses do not only speak of the function of taṣdīq as the Qurʾān’s key function, but also the function of al-Furqān (The Criterion), or that by which truth is distinguished from falsehood, especially in relation to Jesus and the claims of his divinity (al-Ṭabarī 1994, vol. 2, pp. 209–10). However, al-Rāzī added that the function of al-Furqān could also refer to the psalms in accordance with 17:55, or that it refers to the three books altogether given their earlier mention as a guidance to people (al-Rāzī 1981, vol. 7, p. 174).

4:47   O you who were given the Scripture, believe in what We have sent down [to Muhammad], confirming (muṣaddiqa) that which is with you, before We obliterate faces and turn them toward their backs or curse them as We cursed the sabbath-breakers. And ever is the decree of Allah accomplished.

As with previous verses, this verse invites the People of the Book, but more specifically the Jews of Madinah, as al-Ṭabarī indicates, to accept the revelations given to Muhammad as true, for it is nothing but confirmatory of the previous scriptures given to them (al-Ṭabarī 1994, vol. 2, pp. 477–78). According to al-Qurṭubī, while some commentators took the punishment mentioned in the verse at its face value, others understood it metaphorically (al-Qurṭubī 2006, vol. 6, pp. 404–5).

5:48   And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming (muṣaddiqa) that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what God has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had God willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To God is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.

Addressing the Prophet Muhammad directly, the verse describes the Qurʾān, which is revealed to him as confirming the book that came before it. However, as with Q. 3:4, it adds another function to the Qurʾān, that is, acting as a muhaymin over the previous scriptures, which is commonly taken to mean that the Qurʾān testifies to the validity of the earlier scriptures and serves as their protector, guardian, trustee, and keeper (al-Ṭabarī 1994, vol. 3, pp. 109–10).

6:92   And this is a Book which We have sent down, blessed and confirming (muṣaddiqa) what was before it, that you may warn the Mother of Cities and those around it. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in it, and they are maintaining their prayers.

Despite the repetition and the point of confirmation that is familiar to us by now, we cite this verse to show how the theme of confirmation is central to the Qurʾān. In this verse, the Qurʾān is referred to as the blessed book, which is described as a book that came to confirm that which came before it, meaning the Torah and the Gospel.

10:37   And it was not [possible] for this Qur’an to be produced by other than God, but [it is] a confirmation (taṣdīq) of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.

In this verse, the Qurʾān is not only described as confirming that which came before it, that is, the previous revealed scriptures, most notably the Torah and the Gospel, but it also characterized as elaborating the book in which there is no doubt, which is commonly understood to refer to the laws and doctrines that God has ordained for Muslims in it (al-Ṭabarī 1994, vol. 4, p. 209). It is noteworthy that the Torah of Moses is also described as an elaboration of all things in Q. 6:154.

12:111   There was certainly in their stories a lesson for those of understanding. Never was the Qurʾān a narration invented, but a confirmation (taṣdīq) of what was before it and a detailed explanation of all things and guidance and mercy for a people who believe.

In this verse, the Qurʾān is again characterized as a confirmer of the scriptures that came before it and that it is not a fabricated book. In addition to that, it reiterates what was said in Q. 10:37, i.e., the Qurʾān is an elaboration of all things.

35:31   And that which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], of the Book is the truth, confirming (muṣaddiqa) what was before it. Indeed, God, of His servants, is Acquainted and Seeing.

Similarly, this verse addresses the Prophet, saying, nothing has been revealed to you save that which has been revealed to the messengers before you. Hence, the Qurʾān cannot but confirm previous scriptures, so that there is no essential difference between it and previous books.

46:12   And before it was the scripture of Moses to lead and as a mercy. And this is a confirming (muṣaddiq) Book in an Arabic tongue to warn those who have wronged and as good tidings to the doers of good.

The Qurʾān is described here as a book that confirms the Torah and the Gospel, among other revelations. While the Qurʾān is God’s word in Arabic, the Torah is believed to have been God’s word in Hebrew.

46:30   They said, “O our people, indeed we have heard a [recited] Book revealed after Moses confirming (muṣaddiqa) what was before it which guides to the truth and to a straight path”.

Finally, the Qurʾān is described in its last mention in the Qurʾānic sequence as confirming earlier scriptures; a book that guides to the truth which guides to God, “the Truth” (al-Ḥaqq), which is one of the divine names of God. The common denominator between these various verses is that they are either addressed to the unbelievers, or the People of the Book, or to Prophet Muhammad himself, describing the book sent down to him, meaning the Qurʾān, as confirming the books that came before it. However, in addition to the function of taṣdīq, two other functions are attributed to the Qurʾān. Namely, al-Furqān and muhaymin. While Qurʾān commentators differed as to what is meant exactly by those terms, they all agreed that they carry the connotations of being a guardian over those preceding scriptures, watching over their truth and dispelling erroneous understandings of them (Nasr et al. 2015, pp. 694–96).

Taṣdīq vs. taḥrīf

Given that taḥrīf has often been used as precursor to the theory of naskh, the natural question is raised: If taṣdīq is accepted as an analytical tool instead of naskh, what do we make of the verses that talk about taḥrīf? For us to address this question, we need to briefly dwell upon what we mean by Tawrāt and Injīl. Tawrāt is often taken as a reference to the five books of Moses, and Injīl is often taken as a reference to the revelation given to Jesus. The question that follows from that is whether the Injīl is the same as the Gospel and whether the Tawrāt is the same as the Pentateuch as we now have it. Also, while the Qurʾān confirms what was before it, it does not describe the content of the existing teaching.

In response to this, the distinctions between text and interpretation is necessary. That is to say that the Qurʾān mentions a partial (hence not complete) forgetting of the original message of the Torah and the Gospel (consider Q. 5:14). Furthermore, it describes Islam as a fulfilment of prophecies in the Bible (consider Q. 7:157). Additionally, it calls on Jews and Christians to rule themselves according to their scriptures (consider Q. 5:43–47, 68). For such references and because there is little to endorse the belief that the Bible has been altered significantly since the seventh century, “it becomes necessary to see the Qurʾānic statements about the Jewish and Christian scriptures in light of the existing Jewish and Christian traditions and not as an alleged variation existent at the time” (Nasr et al. 2015, p. 344). Abdullah Saeed made a relevant valid point here as well when he wrote: “Since the ‘authorized’ scriptures of Jews and Christians remain very much today as they existed at the time of the Prophet, it is difficult to argue that the Qur’anic references to Tawrāt and Injīl were only to the ‘pure’ Tawrāt and Injīl as existed at the time of Moses and Jesus, respectively” (Saeed 2002, p. 434).

Here, I also appeal to Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1228) as a commentator whose view of the Bible can support the proposal of taṣdīq, which also accounts for the question of taḥrīf. In his commentary on Q. 5:47, Ibn Taymiyya tells us that there are commentators who argued that, in the whole world, there is no single authentic copy of the Bible that corresponds to what God revealed in the Injīl. Hence, they argue, all that exists are altered (mubaddal). As for Tawrāt, its chain of transmission from a large number of people to a subsequent large number of people has been disconnected. Additionally, they argue, the Injīl is taken from four accounts when the Qurʾān speaks only of one (Ibn Taymiyya n.d., vol. 1, p. 209).

Ibn Taymiyya categorizes those views into three categories and then prefers one position. Firstly, those who contend that much of what is in Tawrāt and Injīl today is false (bāṭil), and not of God’s actual word (kalām Allah). On the contrary, others who argue that no one has changed any text of the Biblical texts and that Jews and Christians only tampered their meanings using false interpretations. Many Muslims adopt both of these views. However, the view that Ibn Taymiyya prefers is that there are true (ṣaḥīḥ) copies of the Bible in the world, and that these copies remained until the time of Prophet Muhammad, yet at the same time, many other existing copies are corrupted. Therefore, he who says that nothing in these copies was corrupted is he who has denied what should be taken for granted. Similarly, he who says that—after the advent of Prophet Muhammad—all copies have been corrupted (ḥurrifat) is he who has uttered what is clearly wrong (khaṭa’); this is because the Qurʾān asks Jews and Christians to judge with what God revealed in the Bible and says that in it there is guidance and light. He then closed the discussion with this statement: “There is nothing in the Qurʾān to indicate that they altered all copies” (Ibn Taymiyya n.d., vol. 1, p. 209).

As the quotation makes clear, Ibn Taymiyya argues that since Jews and Christians are called on to use their scriptures in their judgement, such scriptures cannot be said to be fully corrupted. Instead, Q. 5:47 must refer to the Injīl at hand at that time, the early seventh century CE, and the same is said of Q. 5:43, which calls on the Jews to judge with the Torah. Combining both the Torah and the Gospel, Q. 3:113 identifies the verses of the Torah and the Gospel as the words of God, where it says: “They are not [all] the same; among the People of the Scripture is a community standing [in obedience], reciting the verses of Allah during periods of the night and prostrating [in prayer]”. As al-Dārimī states, “God knows all languages and speaks in whichever language He wishes: if He wishes, He speaks in Arabic; and if He wishes, He speaks in Hebrew; and if He wishes, in Syriac. So He has made the Qurʾān His Word in Arabic” (Nasr et al. 2015, p. 2804).

One might say that there are ḥadīth traditions that tender a negative view of the Biblical tradition as whole, asking Muslims to refrain from reading such scriptures, an example of which is the ḥadīth (a saying attributed to Prophet Muhammad) that relates that ʿUmar came to the Prophet saying “We hear from Jews traditions which charm us, so do you think we should write down some of them?” He replied “Are you in a state of confusion as the Jews and the Christians were? I have brought it, i.e., Islam, to you white and pure, and if Moses were alive he would feel it absolutely necessary to follow me” (al-Khaṭīb al-Tibrīzī 1979, p. 63). In response to this, we say that the ḥadīth traditions that have reached us on this question are quite diverse, if not conflicting. Negating this ḥadīth is the following tradition in al-Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ, in which ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ (d. 683), who, like ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, was an avid reader of the Torah, is asked: “Tell me about the description of Prophet Muhammad in the Torah?” He said:

“Yes. By God, he is described in Torah with some of the qualities attributed to him in the Qurʾān as follows: “O Prophet! We have sent you as a witness, and a giver of glad tidings, And a warner”, and guardian of the illiterates. You are My worshipper and My messenger Apostle). I have named you “Al-Mutawakkil” (who depends upon God). You are neither discourteous, harsh, nor a noisemaker in the markets. And you do not do evil to those Who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will not let him (the Apostle) die till he makes straight the crooked people by making them say: “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah”, With which will be opened blind eyes And deaf ears and enveloped hearts”.

(al-Bukhārī 1997, no. 4838)

To drive the message home, when we have such conflictive ḥadīths on the value of the Bible, one needs to consult the Qurʾān to see its holistic view of the Bible and the prism through which it looks at it. Despite the Qurʾān’s critique of various Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Bible and its assertion that taḥrīf had occurred, the Qurʾān never introduced itself as an “abrogator” (nāsikh) of the Bible, nor said that it is fully corrupted, but rather presented itself as a “confirmer” (muṣaddiq) in no less than 12 evident occurrences.

Challenging taṣdīq?

Before we bring this article to a close, a couple of observations that may challenge taṣdīq are due. Chief amongst these is the Qurʾān’s problematizing of certain Christian readings of the New Testament, which does not only relate to the Incarnation and the Trinity, but also to historical events such as the Crucifixion. To this I say that these readings and interpretations are open to debate amongst Muslim scholars themselves. To provide an example, the thorny question of “the raising up of Jesus” (rafʿ ʿĪsā—as described in Qur’ān 3: 55 and 4: 158), the former Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Maḥmūd Shaltūt (d. 1963), staunchly objects to making this matter one of essential creed for Muslims. That is, Muslims should not accuse of kufr (unbelief) those who believe in Crucifixion, nor those who do not hold that Jesus has been physically raised up to be with God and that he is still alive. Here, he demonstrates how the Qur’ānic verses in point belong to the realm of the mutashābih (indecisive and open to interpretation), as opposed to the realm of the muḥkam, which is decisive and is not open to interpretation. In making his case, he cites Qur’ānic verses where the verb rafaʿa is used in the metaphorical sense of raising in dignity, not in physicality. Strengthening this interpretation is the fact that the Qurʾān also refers to Jesus with the verb tawaffā in Q. 3.55, which is often employed in reference to death in the common sense of the word. Shaltūt ends the discussion by demonstrating how his view is also shared by ʿAbduh, Rashīd Riḍā, and the former Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Muṣṭafā al-Marāghī (d. 1945) (see Shaltūt 2001, pp. 59–83).

Another challenging observation is the fact that the Qurʾān does not only refer to prophets who do not appear in the Bible (Prophet Hūd is often taken as an example), but also that there are prophets in the Bible that do not appear in the Qurʾān (Prophet Jeremiah is a key example). Additionally, there is no reference in the Qurʾān to the Temple in Jerusalem, which is the core and crux of the divine presence in Jewish faith and practice. What do we do with such facts? To this I say the Qurʾān never claimed to be comprehensive or exhaustive in its treatment or counting of past prophets. Q. 40.78 clearly states the following: “And certainly We sent messengers before you: there are some of them that We have mentioned to you and there are others whom We have not mentioned to you.” Moreover, Q. 11.120 tells us that the Qurʾān takes a functional approach to the subject of past prophets in that it narrates only the accounts of those whose mention would strengthen the heart of Prophet Muhammad in a given situation.

Considering the above facts, the renowned Mamlūk Qurʾān commentator, Burhān al-Dīn al-Biqāʿī (d. 1469), could see some strong resonance between the Bible and the Qurʾān, leading him to make some substantive use of the Bible by not only consulting its Arabic translations in his renowned tafsīr, which is known as Naẓm al-durar fī tanāsub al-āyāt wa-l-suwar (Arrangement of the Pearls on the Harmony of the Verses and the Sūras), but also by penning a treatise, entitled Al-aqwāl al-qawīma fī ḥukm al-naql min al-kutub al-qadīma (The Right Verdicts on the Permissibility of Quoting from Old Scriptures), where he contended that drawing on the Bible is not just “permissible”, but is actually “essential” to Muslims’ understanding of the Qurʾān. In his In Defence of The Bible (2008), Walid Saleh excellently introduces those monumental works, situating them in their context and discussing their reception and influence then and now.

With this in mind, we can safely say that using taṣdīq as an analytical tool is more reflective of the Qurʾān’s relation to the Bible, for it affords the Qurʾān not only the function of confirmation, but also that of guardianship and protection. Secondly, it addresses the gaps caused by taḥrīf and naskh, which have made the Qurʾānic narrative somehow “inconsistent”. Hence, this article invites Muslim theologians to rethink those central tools and the role they may have in our conception of the Qurʾān’s relation to the Bible.