The Qur’an – The Preserver of Previous Scripture

By Mutee'a Al Fadi and Sam Shamoun

In an article entitled “The Qur’an: The Divine Quality Control Over Previous Scriptures” posted on the Muslim Debate Initiative site (*), the author makes reference to an analysis of Q 5:48 by an Arabist named Toobaa Kurd, in which Ms. Kurd argues that the word “Muhaymin” in this verse does not point to the “preservation” of earlier revelations that were revealed before the Qur’an (i.e. The Torah and Injil).

As a former Muslim whose native language is Arabic, and one who studied the Qur’an and was involved in its analysis in a most recent book called “The Qur’an Dilemma”,¹ I will provide a rebuttal to Ms. Kurd’s baseless argument and prove that the word “Muhaymin” means “preservation and protection” of the previous scripture. Even though this rebuttal will deal with all of the four-part analysis by Ms. Kurd of Q 5:48, our main focus at the end will be to show that the Qur’an by its own admission claims to be a preserver of the former books (i.e. Torah & Injil).

In her response, Ms. Kurd deals with a question sent to her by Paul Bilal Williams in regard to Muhammad Asad’s translation of Q 5:48:

Ms. Kurd’s argument dealt with the meaning of Q 5:48 and the criticism raised against Asad’s translation of this verse. In summing up those objections she writes:

1. that the Qur’an, which is described as musaddiq and muhaymin over previous scriptures, suggests that it protects previous scriptures from being lost or corrupted; and
2. that the words “whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein” are an interpolation.

Concerning argument (1), Ms. Kurd stated the following:

In other words, Ms. Kurd is denying that the Qur’an according to this verse (ayah) actually preserves the previous scriptures. She is clearly denying that this is the meaning behind this verse.

Not only she argues that the Arabic text does not support argument (1) above, she also argues that only a “lone English translation” by Ahmed Ali, uses the word “Preservation” to imply that the Qur’an was sent to protect the previous revelation from change and corruption. Ms. Kurd goes on to say that she will show “that the ‘preservation’ idea does not really stand.”

As for argument (2), Ms. Kurd noted that any translation of the Qur’an cannot be done as a word-for-word translation; rather, it can be at best an interpretation of the Qur’an or its meaning. Her assertion is based on the fact that no language can express the variety of meanings for any one word in Arabic. She even stated that in her analysis she compared the Arabic verse against Asad’s translation as an illustration of the difficulty that exists in trying to find an exact match of the Arabic into English. This is a claim that we will show to be untrue by demonstrating that Ms. Kurd has failed to provide any convincing evidence which supports her assertion.

Before we begin our part-by-part rebuttal of Ms. Kurd’s grossly negligent and faulty analysis, we would like to provide our readers with a handful of English translations of Q 5:48 that are faithful to the meaning of the verse, including my own translation of the Arabic:³

With these English translations of Q 5:48 in mind, we will begin our rebuttal to Ms. Kurd’s argument by first addressing part (1) of her analysis.

1. Asad’s Style

In this part, Ms. Kurd attempts to present a futile argument against Asad’s style of translation as a proof that the Arabic Qur’an cannot be translated, rather, only interpreted. In her attempt she only focuses on Asad’s English translation of the verse (Q 5:48) to justify her point. Although we agree with Ms. Kurd that the use of Asad’s English translation of this particular verse is very weak and can be considered a poor choice, we are convinced that a simple search through all of the other available English translations of the Qur’an, as provided above, will easily prove that the Arabic verse of the Qur’an can be translated rather faithfully, if not even in an exact match of the original Arabic text.

Ms. Kurd could have been more truthful in her presentation by providing samples of other English translations in order to compare them with Asad’s. However, it seems apparent to us that Ms. Kurd has a very specific agenda. Her intention is geared toward providing evidences to discredit all English translations of the Qur’an which deals with this verse. This is done in order to support her self-asserted claim that the Muslim scripture in general cannot be translated faithfully or word-for-word. It is quite ironic that Ms. Kurd starts her weak argument in part (1) by saying the following:

In other words, Ms. Kurd gave herself the right to provide a word-for-word translation of the Arabic verse, stating that it was rather simple to do, while at the same time completely ignoring all other available English translations of this verse which match her own, as we have demonstrated above. One can only conclude from such a weak presentation that Ms. Kurd’s scholarship is pathetic at best.

Concerning the second clause of the verse in question, Ms. Kurd further states that the Arabic word “bilHaqq” can mean that the book is revealed “in truth,” or “with the truth”. The renowned Islamic commentator of the Qur’an, al-Tabari, makes reference to this in his exegesis of Q 5:48 by stating that the phrase {in truth} indicates that it [the book] has no lies in it since, without a doubt, it is from Allah (*), so did Ibn Kathir (*). Later in our response we will show that this is very damaging since the verse places the Qur’an at the same level with the previous scriptures in source and unity.

2. Musaddiq

In part (2) of her argument Ms. Kurd provides a host of meanings for the word “Musaddiq” which is translated as “confirming” in reference to the Qur’an attesting to the scripture which came before it. Most classical Islamic commentators assert that this in itself indicates that the Qur’an is the same kind of revelation as the scriptures that came before it. In fact, this can be seen more clearly in the Arabic by the use of the singular term “The Book” (Ar. al-kitab) in reference to both the Qur’an and the former books. This means that the Arabic verse provides a sense of unity between the Qur’an and the previous scriptures revealed before it. Hence, one way to translate this phrase is to say, “Confirming what is between his hands of the same book”.

Lest anyone claims that the preposition “mina” in the Arabic phrase “lima bayna yadayhi mina alkitabi (what is between his hands)”⁴ may stand for “parts of” or “portions of” the previous scripture as opposed to the whole of the previous scriptures, we would like to point out that the Arabic language does have a number of cognate terms which can be used to represent the phrase “part of” one of which is “baAAda” as can be seen in the following verse:

Furthermore, it will make no sense to claim that the preposition “mina” [of or from – English] represents “part of” the previous scriptures in this verse (Q 5:48) since the same preposition was used in the same verse to address the truth revealed to Muhammad. We read this in the clause “wala tattabiAA ahwaahum AAamma jaaka mina alhaqqi (do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you)” as can be seen below:

Would Ms. Kurd or other Muslims accept the interpretation that according to this verse (Q 5:48) Muhammad received “part of” the truth?

Therefore, if the intent in Q 5:48 was to show that The Qur’an is attesting to “part of” the truth from the previous scriptures, then the Qur’an could have easily pointed that out by using the appropriate term to denote such. Therefore, since the Arabic has an explicit word for “part” and since in 5:48 there is no such explicit word for part, then we cannot simply assume it, as did Ms. Kurd. The only logical and honest interpretation is to have “the whole book” in view.

This observation is vital since it provides evidence that the Qur’an attests to the nature, origin, type, unity, and completeness of the former book. Why then would the Qur’an be placed at the same level with an incomplete scripture, and attest to the truth found in it? In other words, how can an incomplete book provide complete truth that can be attested and confirmed, since the verse makes no mention of the Qur’an adding to the truth found in the previous scripture, something that could have been done so easily in the Arabic. The verse could have read “we sent down to you the book by the truth confirming that which is between his hands and completing it,” or “correcting it,” or “perfecting it”.

However, the Qur’an talks only about attesting and confirming the truth found in the previous book. Such assertion removes the Qur’an from the status of being above the former book and negates its function as a quality control agent over it.

There are other problems with Ms. Kurd’s understanding of the word “Musaddiq” (“confirming”) which we will pick up on in the next section.

3. The Book

Two issues can be discussed in this part (3). The first one is the phrase “between his hands” which is an idiom that denotes the presence of the formerly revealed book during Muhammad’s life. One observation can be made here which Ms. Kurd completely ignored. Q 5:48 starts by using a 2^nd person pronoun “YOU” which most translators and commentators take as a reference to Muhammad. However, the verse switches from a 2^nd person to a 3^rd person pronoun when it speaks of the book “between his hands”. Such switch creates awkwardness in terms of the grammatical structure of the Arabic verse since it gives the impression that two different individuals are being mentioned in this passage, e.g. the first pronoun may be in reference to Muhammad while the second refers to someone else. The Arabic text could have solved this problem easily if it had utilized the phrase “between YOUR hands” in lieu of “between HIS hands”, something that can only cause a dilemma grammatically and theologically as well. After all, the Qur’an does use the appropriate possessive pronoun in other places, such as Q 3:50 and Q 61:6 below (in reference to Jesus):

If the second pronoun is intended for Muhammad why then did the verse not use the pronoun “YOUR”? Rather, the Arabic uses the pronoun “HIS”, and “HIS” can refer either to Allah or to Gabriel. In other words, could it be that the verse is addressing Muhammad and pointing out to him that the Quran is a confirmation of the book [previous scripture] between Allah’s hands or Gabriel’s hands? This interpretation would remove some of the grammatical tension in the verse but instead causes another tension for Muslims, one that is theological in nature, since such an assertion can pose a challenge to the Islamic claim that the previous scripture is corrupted when in fact it is given by Allah who is the same one that gave the Qur’an.⁵ However, our intent for now is not to resolve the poor grammar of the Qur’an and its faulty composition since there is no end to such problems in the Qur’an. For more on this and many other Qur’anic contradictions, the readers can consult any of the following articles:⁶

Response to Zakir Naik's Claims for the Quran 2
Tauhid versus I’jaz al-Quran
Is Satan an Angel or a Jinn?
Grammatical Errors in the Qur'an - Response to Khalid
Is Allah really one or only "one of"?

As for the second point within part (3) of Ms. Kurd’s analysis, it becomes very clear that her assertions and critique is stemming out of personal conviction rather than scholarly research or analysis.

Earlier in her paper Ms. Kurd criticized some of Asad’s style of translation, calling them interpretation and flowery language. However, Ms. Kurd decided now to change her stance and commend Asad for adding things into the verse that are actually not in the Arabic, nor suggested by classical Islamic commentators, as we will show below.

Asad, being a European convert to Islam, made an attempt to justify why the Qur’an is stating that it was a confirmation of the previous scripture by adding his own commentary to the verse in saying “confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein”. In other words, Asad believes that the Qur’an in this verse is only confirming whatever remained of the previous scripture and serves as a guide as to what is true within it. Such interpolation by Asad is definitely unfounded based on this passage and the Qur’an in general. A quick survey of the Qur’an will reveal that the use of the word “confirming” as applied to the Qur’an’s relationship to the former revelations always denotes the entire scripture without any mention of any corruption whatsoever. One example of these passages is found in Q 3:3 below:

Here are two other examples:

Now notice how Asad translated this verse:

If we were to apply the logic of the author we would therefore be forced to come to the conclusion that these passages which use the verb saddaqa are not at all suggesting that John the Baptist or Mary confirmed all of the words of Allah since not all of his words remained intact! They only confirmed those parts of Allah’s words which were true and sound since some of Allah’s statements are wrong and contain lies! Now, would any Muslim seriously buy this line of reasoning?

What makes this all the more interesting is that Asad himself didn’t dare to translate saddaqa in these particular texts as “confirming the truth of whatever remains,” since he apparently saw that such a meaning would make absolutely no sense contextually!

To make matters worse, Ms. Kurd even cites a verse where saddaqa appears, in order to prove that it doesn’t mean to preserve!

The problem with this argument is that no one has said that the word saddaqa means preservation, but that the word “Muhaymin” does which isn’t even used in Q 3:50! Therefore, this shows that Ms. Kurd doesn’t understand the argument or is deliberately misrepresenting it in order to attack a straw man.

And just to answer her question, “confirm” here means that the Gospel testifies that the Torah which the Jews of Jesus’ day possessed is the uncorrupt word of God, since God has preserved it from corruption, even though some of its rulings have been set side in order to make way for a new dispensation for a new age.

Other passages in the Qur’an where saddaqa is used in respect to the textual veracity of the previous scriptures include the following: Q 2:41, 89, 91, 97, 101; 3:8; 4:47; 6:92; 10:37; 12:111; 35:31; 37:37; 46:12; 46:30.

The links on the following page provide additional in depth information regarding the Qur’an’s view of the Holy Bible [the previous scripture]: How does Islam view the Bible?

Surprisingly, Ms. Kurd in her comment concerning Asad’s interpolation of this section of the passage stated that his translation agrees with the other translations. However, in evaluating all of the English translations of Q 5:48 provided above, and of the other passages dealing with the phrase “confirming,” it becomes even more obvious that Ms. Kurd lacks any scholarship whatsoever, for all of the translations which we provided actually disagree with Asad’s assertion. Her comments serve as an example of typical Muslim double-talk which is normally used as a means to capitalize on the lack of understanding of the Arabic among Westerners. Unfortunately for Ms. Kurd, such tactic will not work with someone who knows the Arabic language and the Qur’an, as in my case.

There is an even more grievous error committed by Ms. Kurd in this part (3) when she stated that there is nothing in the Arabic version of these references which deny the possibility of any loss or corruption of the former scripture which might take place after the Quran. She also asserted that the confirmation of the Qur’an as noted in Q 5:48 was only intended to “confirm” whatever existed of the previous scripture in its original form when this particular text was “revealed”.

Such claim is far from the truth for various reasons. First, Muslims cannot present a single shred of evidence that the Bible was corrupted before, during, or after the time of Muhammad. On the contrary, we have thousands of biblical manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and in various other languages which support the authenticity and reliability of the Scriptures we have today. Hence, the burden of proof remains on the Muslims to show that the manuscripts of the Holy Bible have been corrupted in such a way and to such a degree that they do not accurately preserve and reflect what was originally written.

Second, Ms. Kurd either does not know her Qur’an well or she is intentionally ignoring what it teaches concerning the Holy Bible. The Quran goes out of its way to testify to the truth and preservation of the former books which were in the possession of Jews and Christians of Muhammad’s time.

Third, Ms. Kurd’s claim is nothing more than a bogus assertion that can easily be refuted. In fact, in the Quran itself we read a promise by the god of Islam [Allah] that he himself will guard the scripture. This is found in Q 15:9:

The verse states clearly that the god of Islam is promising to protect the scripture (the Reminder). Unless Ms. Kurd is doubting her god and his ability to protect the scripture, we find in this passage sufficient evidence to support our view that the text of the Holy Bible is not corrupt, nor can it be, by the Qur’an’s own admission.

And lest anyone argues that the word “Reminder (Zikr – Arabic)” is only talking about the Qur’an, the following verse should solve this problem since it also refers to the Torah as “Reminder”:

These other passages also identify the scriptures in the possession of the Jews and Christians as the Reminder: Q 16:43; 21:7, 48; 40:53-54.

Another verse that denies the possibility of any corruption to the previous scripture is found in Q 41:42:

Al-Razi in his commentary of Q 41:42 stated that the reference to “behind it” refers to the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel (*). Since the Qur’an appeals to the former book to confirm its message, this simply provides further evidence that the author(s) of the Qur’an did not think for a minute that the previous revelations had been corrupted and were therefore no longer trustworthy.

4. Muhaymin

We finally come to the end of our rebuttal by responding to Ms. Kurd’s analysis of the term “Muhaymin” in Q 5:48 where she has committed her worst exegesis of the verse, including a very poor interpolation of how the term can be used.

Ms. Kurd did give a valid background concerning the root of the word “Muhaymin” and its various meanings such as “to guard, to watch, to control,” also “criterion” or “hegemony,” all of which we basically agree with. However, she ends up distorting the facts when she asserts that Asad’s translation “Determining what is true therein” is another way of saying that “Muhaymin” determines which portions of the previous scripture can be called “the Book,” which we completely disagree with. In fact, if the Arabic wanted to say something as this it would have been so easy to do so, as we saw above.

Ms. Kurd goes on to say that she disagrees with the critics who suggest that the term “Muhaymin” means “to preserve” stating that the Qur’an could have used another word to describe such an action, namely (h-f-d) which is used in Q 15:9 and which we cited above. However, Ms. Kurd’s view of the critics of the Qur’an can not be taken as an expert opinion since scores of classical Islamic commentators of the Qur’an disagree with her critique of the critics. Besides, she erroneouesly assume that words cannot overlap in meaning or function as synonyms, e.g. the word “Muhaymin” can be defined as preserve and therefore overlap in meaning with “hafidh”, thereby becoming virtually synonyms for each other in particular contexts.

Take for instance Al-Tabari. In his exegesis of Q 5:48 he stated that “Muhaymin” means to be a witness concerning the previous scripture in that it tesifies that it is the truth from Allah, is intended to be faithful to it, and also preserving it (*). Al-Zamakhshari says that “Muhaymin” stands for that which preserves from change and corruption as stated in Q. 41:42 (*), which we quoted above.

Al-Razi in his commentary of Q 5:48 says that the word “Muhaymin” means to be a witness and preserver (*). Al-Qurtubi stated the same thing as one of the meanings for the word “Muhaymin” (*). So did Al-Baydawi (*), Ibn Abdul Salam (*), and Al-Naysabouri (*). As can be seen, all of these classical commentators of the Qur’an agree with the critics that the word “Muhaymin” also means “to preserve,” hence they disagree with Ms. Kurd’s false assertion.

However, and for the benefit of our readers, we highly recommend that they consult the articles listed below as they have thoroughly dealt with the term “Muhaymin” in great depth:

The Classical Muslim Commentators and their Exegesis of Surah 5:48
   – Muhaimin and Its Relation to the Integrity of the Holy Bible
The Quranic Witness to Biblical Authority
The Quran as Guardian of the Bible – Revisiting the Meaning of Muhaymin
The Quran confirms – The Two Testaments of the Holy Bible Are the Torah and Injil!
The Quran Confirms the Bible Has Never Been Corrupted [Part 2]

It is unfortunate that Ms. Kurd was wavering back and forth regarding Asad’s translation by first attacking it and then using whatever parts of it that suited her preconceived opinion regarding the previous scripture. As we demonstrated above, there are many faithful and reliable English translations of the Qur’an that would have helped Ms. Kurd interpret the verse correctly. One can only wonder if Ms. Kurd even knows Arabic and is in fact qualified to produce a sound interpretation of Q 5:48 or any other part of the Qur’an. It comes as no surprise that at the end of her analysis she closed by stating that such opinions are “far from an ‘expert’ view,” something we certainly agree with judging from the quality of her analysis.

Conclusion

The preceding rebuttal to Ms. Kurd’s unscholarly analysis of Q 5:48 and additional passages serve to show the reader that the Qur’an in Q 5:48 and many other texts claimed to be a confirmation of the previous scripture and, specifically in Q 5:48, a preserver of that scripture as well.

Ms. Kurd’s attempt to paint a different picture concerning the meaning of the word “Muhaymin” by denying that it means “Preserver” clearly shows her lack of knowledge of the Arabic language and what the Qur’an teaches.

It is worthy to note that the Bible, the TRUE WORD of God, has been preserved for thousands of years from before and after the time of the Qur’an. Such preservation is secured and guaranteed because of the promise of our Lord, the TRUE God, to preserve His word forever, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Qur’an, neither its false message, nor its false god.