Narratives of Tampering in The Earliest Commentaries On The Quran

Narratives of Tampering
in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qurn
History of
Christian-Muslim
Relations
Edited by
David Thomas, University of Birmingham

Tarif Khalidi, American University of Beirut
Gerrit Jan Reinink, University of Groningen
Mark Swanson, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
VOLUME 13
Narratives of Tampering
in the Earliest Commentaries
on the Qurn
By
Gordon Nickel
Leiden boston
2011
Cover illustration: painting from the Akbarnma depicting the visit of Fathers Rudolph
Acquaviva and Anthony Monserrat to the Mughal court in Fatehpur-Sikri in response
to the emperor Akbars request to send me two learned Fathers, and the books of the
Law, especially the Gospel, that I may know the Law and its excellence [...] (1579).
By permission of The Trustees of Chester Beatty Library, Dublin.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Nickel, Gordon D.
Narratives of tampering in the earliest commentaries on the Quran /
by Gordon Nickel.
p. cm. (History of Christian-Muslim relations ; v. 13)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-19238-6 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. KoranCriticism, interpretation, etc.History. 2. KoranCriticism, Textual.
I. Title. II. Series.
BP130.45.N53 2011
297.122609021dc22
2010044682
ISSN 1570-7350
ISBN 978 90 04 19238 6 (hardback)
ISBN 978 90 04 19239 3 (e-book)
Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission
from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by
Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to
The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
CONTENTS
Foreword ..............................................................................................
ix
Chapter One Islamic Accusations of Falsification in

Scholarly Perspective .....................................................................
Link Between Accusation and Qurn? ......................................
Development Within Early Commentaries ...............................
Tampering Portrayed Through Narrative . ................................
1
6
9
11
Chapter Two The Doctrine of Corruption as a Polemical

Theme . .............................................................................................
Tampering with Meaning, Tampering with Text . ...................
Verses Connected to the Tampering Theme . ...........................
Exegesis During the Formative Period of Islam .......................
15
21
26
30
Chapter Three Qurnic References to the Earlier

Scriptures .........................................................................................
References to Earlier Scriptures in the Qurn .........................
Scriptures Mentioned by Name ..............................................
The Book ..................................................................................
Other Writings ...........................................................................
The Word of God ......................................................................
The Claim of Confirmation . ....................................................
Characterizations of the Earlier Scriptures ...........................
The Semantic Field of Tampering ...............................................
Labasa, to confound . ................................................................
Verbs of Concealing: katama, asarra, akhf . .......................
Baddala, to substitute . ..............................................................
H arrafa, to tamper with ...........................................................
Law, to twist .............................................................................
Nasiya, to forget .........................................................................
The Operation of the Semantic Field . ........................................
Conclusions .....................................................................................
37
39
39
42
45
46
47
48
50
52
53
56
57
59
60
61
65
vi
contents
Chapter Four Muqtil Ibn Sulaymn on the Qurnic

Verses of Tampering .....................................................................
Muqtils Style of Exegesis . ..........................................................
Muqtils Commentary on Verses Containing Verbs of
Alteration ....................................................................................
Q 2:58, 59 ....................................................................................
Q 2:75 . .........................................................................................
Q 2:211 ........................................................................................
Q 4:46 . .........................................................................................
Q 5:13 . .........................................................................................
Q 5:41 . .........................................................................................
Q 7:162 ........................................................................................
Muqtils Commentary on Verses Containing Verbs of
Concealment ...............................................................................
Q 2:42 . .........................................................................................
Q 2:77 . .........................................................................................
Q 2:140 ........................................................................................
Q 2:146 ........................................................................................
Q 2:159 ........................................................................................
Q 2:174 ........................................................................................
Q 3:71 . .........................................................................................
Q 3:187 ........................................................................................
Q 4:37 . .........................................................................................
Q 5:15 . .........................................................................................
Q 6:91 . .........................................................................................
Muqtils Commentary on Verses Containing Other Verbs
of Tampering ..............................................................................
Confounding . .............................................................................
Twisting .......................................................................................
Forgetting ....................................................................................
Muqtils Commentary on Verses Containing Expressions
of Action . ....................................................................................
Write the Book with Hands . ...................................................
Sell for a Little Price . ................................................................
Throw Behind Backs .................................................................
Invent a Lie Against God .........................................................
Analysis of Muqtils Exegesis .....................................................
Muqtils Understanding of the Alteration Verses ..................
Adding Words to a Verbal Report .........................................
Abusing the Prophet and Slandering Religion .....................
67
68
73
73
74
77
78
80
82
87
88
88
89
90
90
91
92
92
93
94
95
95
96
96
97
99
100
100
101
103
103
105
105
105
106
contents
Refusing to Acknowledge the Truth ......................................
Setting aside a Torah Command ............................................
Substituting One Saying for Another . ...................................
Muqtils Understanding of the Concealment Verses .............
Muqtils Understanding of Other Tampering Verses . ..........
Muqtils Understanding of Verses Containing Expressions
of Action . ....................................................................................
Conclusion . .....................................................................................
Chapter Five T abar on the Qurnic Verses of Tampering ....

T abars Commentary on Verses of Alteration . .......................
Description: Wide Variety of Exegetical Traditions . ..........
Q 2:75 ......................................................................................
Q 4:46 ......................................................................................
Q 5:13 ......................................................................................
Q 5:41 ......................................................................................
Q 2:59 and 7:162 ...................................................................
Q 2:211 ....................................................................................
Analysis: Emphasis on Failure to Apply the Torah . ...........
Verbal Changes of Interpretation ...........................................
A Twist of the Tongue . ............................................................
They wrote something else with their hands ........................
Relaxing the Application of a Torah Command . ................
T abars Commentary on the Verses of Concealment ............
Description: Hiding Information About Muh ammad ........
Analysis: Actions of Inappropriate Response .......................
T abars Commentary on Other Verses of Tampering ...........
Description: Dishonesty with Gods Revelation ...................
Twisting . .................................................................................
Confounding ..........................................................................
Forgetting . ..............................................................................
Analysis: An Action of Adding to Scripture . .......................
T abars Commentary on Verses Containing Idiomatic
Expressions .................................................................................
Description: Strong Tradition of Falsification ......................
Write the Book with Hands ................................................
Sell for a Little Price .............................................................
Throw Behind Backs .............................................................
Invent a Lie Against God . ...................................................
Analysis: Moderation of a Harsh Accusation .......................
Conclusions .....................................................................................
vii
107
108
111
112
113
114
116
117
120
120
120
123
126
129
136
137
138
138
139
141
142
145
145
148
149
149
150
151
152
153
154
154
154
155
156
157
157
159
viii
contents
Chapter Six Method and Meaning in Interpretation of the

Qurn ..............................................................................................
The Narrative Framework in Muqtils Tafsr ..........................
Patterns in an Extended Exegetical Passage ..............................
Repetition of Evocative Names . ..................................................
Linking the Past to the Prophet of Islam . .................................
Outlines of the Overarching Story ..............................................
Functions of the External Framework . ......................................
The Narrative Framework in the Exegesis of the Tampering
Verses . .........................................................................................
The Matter of Muh ammad ...........................................................
Part of the Covenant .....................................................................
A Link of Correspondence ...........................................................
Rich Vocabulary of Resistance . ...................................................
Unbelief .......................................................................................
Duplicity ......................................................................................
Denial . .........................................................................................
Disrespect ....................................................................................
Envy .............................................................................................
Greed . ..........................................................................................
Enmity .........................................................................................
Rejection ......................................................................................
Treachery . ...................................................................................
Obstinacy . ...................................................................................
Personification of Responses to Muh ammad . ..........................
Conclusions .....................................................................................
181
182
185
188
191
192
193
195
196
197
199
200
201
202
203
205
207
Chapter Seven Influence of Narrative Framework on

Exegesis ............................................................................................
Authority of Narrative Over Dogma ..........................................
The Narrative Dynamic of the Sra . ...........................................
Conclusions .....................................................................................
211
211
213
220
165
170
171
174
175
177
179
Chapter Eight Conclusion: Religious Claims and

Human Response ........................................................................... 223
Bibliography ........................................................................................ 233
Index of Qurnic References ........................................................... 247
Index of Proper Names, Authors and Terms ................................ 251
Foreword
The purpose of the present study is to describe and analyze early Muslim
understandings of verses in the Qurn which Muslim polemicists have
used to support the Islamic accusation of scriptural falsification. The
Islamic accusation of the falsification of pre-Qurnic scriptures is an
active theme in Muslim/non-Muslim encounter today. The accusation
also relates closely to the development of Islamic identity, both in how
Islam initially sought attestation in the Torah and Gospel, and in the
way it eventually set itself apart from Judaism and Christianity. For
nearly a decade I heard the accusation of falsification in its contemporary form from friends in South Asia. It was then a great privilege to be able to investigate what Muslim exegetes of the formative
period of tafsr wrote about the Qurnic tampering verses which
are frequently associated with the Islamic accusation. Early Muslim
understandings point toward an overarching narrative framework of
Jewish perfidy and obstinacy, and I have traced the outlines of that
framework in this study. However, the results of my research also bear
significant implications for interfaith conversation and for the dating
of the formulation of the Islamic accusation of falsification.
A number of fine scholars have helped me in the research and writing of this book. Andrew Rippin, Professor of History at the University
of Victoria, Canada, guided me through the research as PhD supervisor and has helped me keep in step with scholarly work on Muqtil.
During PhD research, I consulted Kees Versteegh, Professor of Arabic,
and Harald Motzki, Professor of Islamic Studies, at the Radboud
Universiteit in Nijmegen. Camilla Adang, Senior Lecturer in Arabic
and Islamic Studies at Tel Aviv University, read my PhD dissertation
and offered many helpful suggestions (and some corrections!). Jane
Dammen McAuliffe, President of Bryn Mawr College, and Gerhard
Bwering, Professor of Religious Studies and Islamic Studies at Yale
University, read portions of the manuscript and offered valuable recommendations for revision. Martin Whittingham, director of the
Centre for Muslim-Christian Studies in Oxford, read chapter 6 closely
and offered many helpful suggestions. I would also like to thank Brills
two anonymous readers for their comments and suggestions.
foreword
Other scholars who have encouraged me in my research and writing are Irving Hexham, University of Calgary, Shahid Ali Abbasi,
Osmania University (Hyderabad), Nicolai Sinai, Corpus Coranicum
project (Berlin), Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala, University of Cordoba,
and David Thomas, University of Birmingham. I am deeply grateful
to all of these scholars for the time and attention they gave to my
research. I am also very thankful to my wife Gwenyth for letting me
incorporate this research and writing into our life together (and for
listening to my monologues on Muqtil, even though she frequently
used them to cure her insomnia).
Initial discoveries in the commentary of Muqtil were published
as Muqtil ibn Sulaymn on the verses of tampering in Islamic
Culture 76/3 (2002). A summary of chapter 4 was presented at the
Fifth Woodbrooke-Mingana Symposium in Birmingham in September
2005, and subsequently published as Early Muslim Accusations of
Tahrf: Muqtil ibn Sulaymns commentary on key Qurnic verses,
in The Bible in Arab Christianity (David Thomas, ed., Leiden: Brill,
2007). I have enjoyed every aspect of the research and writing of this
book, and some of my most pleasant times of writing were in peaceful cottages in the Palni Hills of southern India and on the mountain slope above Vernon, British Columbia. I thank the Kodaikanal
International School and Fairhaven Ministries, respectively, for making this possible.
Qurnic translations generally follow Arthur J. Arberrys The Koran
Interpreted, though in some cases I have given my own literal rendering of the Arabic. Qurn references are indicated by Q followed by
sra number and verse number. There are a number of works that
appear frequently in footnotes throughout the book. These works are
indicated by the following abbreviations:
Tafsr Muqtil = Muqtil ibn Sulaymn. Tafsr Muqtil ibn Sulaymn.
Abd Allh Mahmd Shihta, ed. Beirut: Msasat al-Trkh
al-Arabiyya, 2002, 5 volumes.
Jmi al-Bayn = Ab Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarr al-Tabar. Tafsr
al-T abar, Jmi al-bayn an tawl y al-Qurn. Mahmd
Muhammad Shkir and Ahmad Muhammad Shkir, eds. Second
edition. Cairo, 195569, 16 volumes (incomplete).
Arabic-English Lexicon = Edward William Lane. An Arabic-English
Lexicon: Derived from the best and most copious Eastern sources.
London: Williams and Norgate, 1863.
foreword
xi
EI2 = The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. H.A.R. Gibb et al., eds.
Leiden: Brill, 19602002, 11 volumes.
EQ = Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, gen. ed.
Leiden: Brill, 20012006, five volumes.
WKAS = Manfred Ullman, ed. Wrterbuch der klassischen arabischen
Sprache. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983.
ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft
(Berlin, 1847).
Gordon Nickel
Vancouver
November 2010
Chapter One
Islamic Accusations of Falsification

in Scholarly Perspective
The Islamic doctrine of the corruption of pre-Qurnic scriptures is a
common topic of interfaith conversation wherever in the world Muslims meet with Jews and Christians today. The origins and development of this doctrine have been topics of academic curiosity ever since
the beginning of the scholarly investigation of Muslim polemic.
Some scholars have argued that the doctrine of corruption began
with the words of the Qurn. They indicate a group of verses in the
Qurn which refer to various actions of tampering. Other scholars
have argued that the Qurn itself does not make an accusation of the
corruption of previous scriptures, but rather that the accusation arose
in the course of Muslim encounter with Jews and Christians and was
brought into the interpretation of the tampering verses. This argument over the Qurnic origin of the doctrine can be investigated by
studying what the earliest Muslim exegetes understood the tampering
verses to mean. Research into early commentary on these verses in
turn leads into a fascinating world of Muslim claims of authority and
the responses to these claims by other faith communities.
Muslims believe that somehow, at some time in the past, Jews and
Christians altered or falsified the revelations which God gave them,
so that their scriptures are now corrupted. The doctrine of scriptural
corruption, known in Arabic by the term tah rf, is all but ubiquitous
in the Muslim world. In Kate Zebiris survey of Muslim popular literature on Christianity, all of the authors who write on the subject of
scripture claim that the text of the Bible is corrupt.1 Zebiri writes that
1
Muslims and Christians Face to Face (Oxford: Oneworld, 1997), 50. The list of
18 popular works surveyed is made up of sources which were available in Muslim
bookstores in the West. Zebiri notes that some Muslims who participate in inter-faith
dialogue question the traditional opinion on tah rf, denying that there was any question of conscious or deliberate falsification. Muslims and Christians, 163. However,
these authors are not among the most popular. The writings of Ahmed Deedat, which
have gained more exposure worldwide than those of any other Muslim writer, are
so combative on this and other subjects that Zebiri declines to include them in her
chapter one
among contemporary Muslims the doctrine of the textual corruption

of the former scriptures is virtually unchallenged.2 The effects which
this doctrine has had on conversation among people of faith in the
three great monotheistic communities can well be imagined.3
However, the doctrine has attracted western scholarly scrutiny for
a variety of other reasons. Ignaz Goldziher wrote that the question of
scriptural falsification was the central point of Muslim polemican
essential key to tracing the development of theological polemic against
the Ahl al-kitb.4 John Wansbrough wrote in a similar vein that the
doctrine of tah rf was destined to bear the major burden of Muslim
survey. Muslims and Christians, 58. Philip Lewis does provide a description of Deedats
attacks on the Bible, and notes that this kind of polemic has received both financial
support from Saudi Arabia and moral and logistical support from Muslims living in
the West. Depictions of Christianity within British Islamic Institutions, in Islamic
Interpretations of Christianity, Lloyd Ridgeon, ed. (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2001),
211215.
2
Muslims and Christians, 6. M.Y.S. Haddad writes that in a survey of contemporary Arab authors, the majority believe that the original book revealed to Moses was
no longer in existence at the time of Muhammad. Only one author was found to
disagree. Arab Perspectives of Judaism. A Study of Image Formation in the Writings of
Muslim Arab Authors 19481978 (Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, 1984), 91. Martin
Accad states it most directly: If you are a Muslim living in the twenty-first century,
you take for granted that the Scriptures of Jews and Christians have been corrupted
(h urrifat). Corruption and/or Misinterpretation of the Bible: The story of the Islmic
usage of tahrf, Theological Review 24/2 (2003), 67.
3
David S. Powers writes, The doctrine of scriptural distortion...has contributed
to the tendency of Muslims and Jews to disregard and ignore one anothers scriptures. Reading/Misreading One Anothers Scriptures: Ibn H azms Refutation of Ibn
Nagrella al-Yahd, in Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions, William M. Brinner
and Stephen D. Ricks, eds. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 109. W. Montgomery Watt
suggested that when Muslims encountered religious disagreements with the conquered
peoples, the doctrine of corruption made it easy to rebuff any arguments based by
Christians on the Bible. Muslim-Christian Encounters: Perceptions and misperceptions
(London: Routledge, 1991): 30. Hugh Goddards study shows that ancient arguments
against the authenticity of the Bible continue in modern Egypt. The Persistence of
Medieval Themes in Modern Christian-Muslim Discussion in Egypt, in Christian
Arabic Apologetics during the Abbasid Period (7501258), Samir Khalil Samir & Jrgen
S. Nielsen, eds. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), 2267. The dynamic of Muslim polemic in
contexts outside of the Middle East is well portrayed by Joseph Kenny and S. Babs
Mala in Muslim Use of Christian Scriptures, West Africa Religion 18 (1978), 3141.
But these may be only the milder effects of the doctrine. M.Y.S. Haddad argues that
contemporary Arab authors use their assertion of the corruption of the Torah to construct a politically-motivatedand deeply negativeimage of the Jews. Arab Perspectives of Judaism, 118119.
4
ber muhammedanische Polemik gegen Ahl al-kitb, ZDMG 32 (1878), 363,
364, cf. 344.
islamic accusations of falsification
external polemic.5 The theme of tah rf, along with the associated doctrine of abrogation, has also been found to be a revealing motif in the
development of Islamic self-identity.6 That process required Islam to
measure itself against the previous, existing religions, as well as to set
itself apart from them.
On a wider canvas, Moshe Perlmann and Hava Lazarus-Yafeh have
portrayed the falsification charge as a popular polemical theme which
had been circulating amongst other religious communities at the time
ofand prior tothe rise of Islam.7 Wansbrough has included the
doctrine of tah rf in a list of basic themes of Muslim polemic which
could be seen to have been adopted and adapted from their use among
Jewish and Christian communities in the Middle East at the time of
the emergence of Islam.8 Other scholars have described and discussed
the accusation of falsification as it occurred in intra-Muslim polemic
concerning the status of the Qurn between Sh and Sunni scholars
in the early centuries of Islam.9
5
The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History (London: Oxford University Press, 1978), 41. More recently Kate Zebiri writes that the
main areas of Muslim polemic have been scriptural integrity and the related accusation of suppressing predictions of Muhammad. Polemic and Polemical Language,
EQ (2004), Vol. 4, 123.
6
The Sectarian Milieu, 109f.
7
Moshe Perlmann, The Medieval Polemics between Islam and Judaism, in Religion in a Religious Age, S.D. Goitein, ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Association for Jewish
Studies, 1974), 106. Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and
Bible criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 1920. Cf. Moritz Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literature in arabischer Sprache, zwischen
Muslimen, Christen und Juden (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1887), 320. Tor Andrae, Les
origines de lIslam et le Christianisme (Paris: Librairie dAmrique et dOrient AdrienMaisonneuve, 1955), 202204; Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 191; idem., Sectarian
Milieu, 41, 109; Jean-Louis Dclais, Les premiers Musulmans face la tradition biblique: trois rcits sur Job (Paris: LHarmattan, 1996), 99 n. 38.
8
Sectarian Milieu, 4044. See also Andrew Rippin, Literary Analysis of Qurn,
Tafsr, and Sra: The Methodologies of John Wansbrough, in Approaches to Islam
in Religious Studies, ed. Richard C. Martin (Tucson: University of Arizona Press,
1985), 157.
9
W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Shah Additions to the Koran, The Moslem World 3
(1913), 227241. Theodor Nldeke [Friedrich Schwally], Geschichte des Qorns, second
edition (Leipzig, 1919), Vol. 2, 93112. Ignaz Goldziher, Die Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslegung (Leiden, 1920), 280289. But cf. A. Falaturi, Die Zwlfer-Schia
aus der Sicht eines Schiiten: Probleme ihrer Untersuchung, in Festschrift Werner
Caskel (Leiden, 1968), 915; Joseph Eliash, The te Qurn: A Reconsideration
of Goldzihers Interpretation, Arabica 16 (1969), 1524; and Hossein Modarressi,
Early Debates on the Integrity of the Qurn, Studia Islamica 77 (1993), 539. Other
important studies include Etan Kohlberg, Some Notes on the Immite Attitude to
the Qurn, in Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, Essays Presented to
chapter one
How did the Islamic doctrine of the corruption of pre-Qurnic

scriptures come into being? Was it an understanding which the first
generations of Muslims shared? How did it develop into the hardened
accusation which is made so readily by many Muslims today? This
study makes a contribution toward the discussion of how the doctrine of the corruption of earlier scriptures developed in Islam.10 Its
area of focus is the development of the tampering motif by Muslim
exegetes in the formative period of Qurnic exegesis. That development is traced through direct literary analysis of commentaries on
the Qurn written by Muqtil ibn Sulaymn (d. 150/767)11 and Ab
Jafar ibn Jarr al-T abar (d. 310/923). The investigation will centre on
the explanations in those commentaries of all of the verses in Muslim
scripture which are commonly connected with the doctrine of scriptural corruption.
Through the investigation of the operation of a single theme in
selected works of tafsr, this study is secondly a contribution toward
knowledge of the earliest period of Qurnic commentary, from the
second to the fourth Islamic centuries. This area of research has been
opened up in recent decades through the publicationindeed, some-
R. Walzer, S.M. Stern et al., eds. (Oxford, 1972), 209224. Etan Kohlberg and Mohammed Ali Amir-Moezzi, Rvlation et falsification. Introduction ldition du Kitb
al-Qirt dal-Sayyr, Journal asiatique 293 (2005/2), 663722.Etan Kohlberg and
Mohammed Ali Amir-Moezzi, eds., Revelation and Falsification, The Kitb al-Qirt
of Ah mad b. Muh ammad al-Sayyr (Leiden: Brill, 2009). Mahmoud Ayoub, The
Speaking Qurn and the Silent Qurn: A Study of the Principles and Development
of Imm Sh tafsr, in Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qurn,
Andrew Rippin, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), 183, 189192. Meir M. Bar-Asher,
Variant Readings and Additions of the Imm-Sha to the Quran, Israel Oriental
Studies 13 (1993), 3974. Idem., Scripture and Exegesis in Early Imm Shiism (Leiden,
1999). Idem., Shism and the Qurn, EQ (2004), Vol. 4, 593604. Rainer Brunner,
Die Schia und die Koranflschung (Wrzburg: Deutsche Morgenlndische Gesellschaft, 2001). For recent Sh discussion of early Sh accusations of tah rif against the
Qurn see idem., The Dispute about the Falsification of the Qurn between Sunns
and Shs in the 20th Century, in Studies in Arabic and Islam (Leuven: Uitgeverij
Peeters, 2002), 437446.
10
Watt wrote in 1991, There has so far been no detailed study of the way in which
this doctrine of corruption was elaborated. Muslim-Christian encounters, 33. Martin
Accad writes, It is true that tah rf became eventually a central point of debate between
Muslim and Christian polemicists, but it might be useful to attempt to trace its entry
into the Islamic discourse in order to determine the exact nature of the argument.
(Accads italics) The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth
Centuries: An exegetical inventorial table, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 14
(2003), 72.
11
The notation d. 150/767 means died in 150 A.H./767 A.D.
times even discoveryof early tafsr works. It is a new field wide open
to the exploration of language, themes and movements in early Islam.
The formative period of Qurnic interpretation is a largely unexplored
area of academic research. A great number of interesting possibilities
present themselves to the scholar.12 Thus far, relatively little scholarly
work has been done on the early commentaries.
Exploring the tafsr works from the formative period involves discovering how the earliest Muslim exegetes developed meaning from
the text of Muslim scripture. The main lines of their methodology
become visible as the development of a motif such as tampering is
traced through the commentaries. At the same time, the commentaries give intimations of how each exegetes methodology influences his
interaction with the text of scripture. The commentaries to be examined are part of the literary record of the development of Islamic
identity in the second to fourth Islamic centuries. This investigation
therefore, thirdly, makes a contribution to the study of the intellectual
history of early Islam.
Chapter two of this study will present a summary of major scholarly studies on the doctrine of tah rf, followed by a characterization of
general trends in how Muslim scholars have understood the theme of
tampering over the course of the Muslim tradition. These descriptions
will make clear that the doctrine has been linked with verses from the
Qurn. This leads naturally to an indication of the particular verses
which scholars have connected with the doctrine. The commentaries
to be examined in this study, along with their authors, will also be
introduced in chapter two.
The exploration of the tampering motif will begin in chapter three
with a survey of the Qurnic references to the earlier scriptures, as
well as of verbs and other expressions from the Qurns semantic field
of tampering. This is necessary becauseas quickly becomes apparent
from familiarity with the commentariesthe exegetes wrote within
the context of the Qurns verbal atmosphere. Chapters four and
five will describe and analyze the explanations of the relevant verses
of tampering in the commentaries of Muqtil and T abar. These
analyses will conclude with concise summaries of the commentaries
12
The development of grammar, of theology, of sectarian trends and of mysticism
are all potentially traceable through a close analysis of these early works. Andrew
Rippin, The Present Status of Tafsir Studies, The Muslim World 72 (1982), 230.
chapter one
nderstandings of the most important Qurnic verbs and expressions

u
of tampering.
Chapters six and seven will follow the direction set in the analyses
by pursuing indications in the commentaries of a narrative structure
looming over the development of the tampering theme. There the
argument will be made that the methodology of exegesis practiced by
narrative commentators exerts an influence on the meanings derived
from the text of scripture. The final chapter will consolidate the findings of description and analysis, and suggest directions which may be
fruitfully pursued in further research on the basis of those findings.
This introductory chapter will now proceed into the question of
whether the accusation of falsification can indeed be found in the
Qurn itself. The rationale for exploring the development of the tampering theme through works of Qurnic commentary will then be
presented. The methodology appropriate to such an investigation is
set forth as literary analysis. Finally, in response to some common
scholarly characterizations of both the relationship of the Qurn to
falsification accusations and of early Muslim understandings of the
tampering verses, the thesis for this study will be articulated.
Link Between Accusation and Qurn?
A number of scholars who have studied the verses in the Qurn relevant to the tampering theme have made the claim that the words of
Muslim scripture themselves do not amount to an accusation of the
textual corruption of earlier scriptures. This view made its scholarly
appearance in a 1955 article by W.M. Watt, The Early Development
of the Muslim Attitude to the Bible.13
Watt wrote that a study of the Qurnic approach to the earlier scriptures must distinguish between what the Qurn actually says and
all later interpretations.14 After an examination of Qurnic passages
containing verbs and expressions of tampering, he concluded that the
Qurn does not put forward any general view of the corruption of the
text of the Old and New Testaments.15 There are clear accusations
in the Qurn that passages in the Bible were concealed, Watt wrote,
Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 16 (195556), 5062.
The Early Development, 50.
15
13
14
and indeed there are also accusations of tah rf in the Qurn. But by
this, the Qurn does not mean tampering with the written text, he
claimed.16
A similar statement of this position has also come from the Muslim
scholar Mahmoud Ayoub:
Contrary to the general Islamic view, the Quran does not accuse Jews
and Christians of altering the text of their scriptures, but rather of altering the truth which those scriptures contain. The people do this by concealing some of the sacred texts, by misapplying their precepts, or by
altering words from their right position. However, this refers more
to interpretation than to actual addition or deletion of words from the
sacred books.17
Watt and Ayoub thus assert that the meaning of the Qurnic verses
of tampering is different from how those verses came to be interpreted
and, indeed, from what came to be the general Islamic view.18
A third statement of this position appeared in an important article
on The Corruption of the Scriptures by John Burton:
Many non-Muslims are still firmly of the belief that Jews and Christians
are accused in the Qurn of having tampered with the texts of the revelations to the prophets now collected into the Old and New Testaments
of their Bible. This is because they regularly encounter such charges in
their reading. The accusation is a commonplace charge levelled against
the People of the Book by the Muslims, not, however, because of what
16
The early development, 53. Watt repeated this view in his later book MuslimChristian Encounters, and there added, Manuscripts of the Bible are still extant which
antedate Muhammad, but there is absolutely no suggestion in the Qurn that the
whole Bible has been corrupted at some time in the distant past, nor that there had
been the collusion between Christians and Jews which would have been necessary in
order to corrupt the Old Testament. Muslim-Christian Encounters, 32.
17
Uzayr in the Quran and Muslim Tradition, in Studies in Islamic and Judaic
Traditions, W.M. Brinner and S.D. Ricks, eds. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 5. Ayoub
immediately adds, The problem of alteration (tah rf) needs further study.
18
Another scholar who made a similar claim was Ignazio Di Matteo. After reviewing
the exegetical treatment of key tampering passages in the Qurn by T abar and Fakhr
al-Dn al-Rz, Di Matteo concluded: According to the Qurn, the text of the holy
scriptures has been altered neither before Muhammad, nor even during his life-time
by those Jews and Christians who were not favourably disposed towards his mission.
In the Qurn tah rf means either false interpretation of the passages bearing upon
Muhammad or non-enforcement of the explicit laws of the Pentateuch, such as the
stoning punishment. Il Tahrf od alterazione della Bibbia secondo i musulmani,
Bessarione xxxviii (1922), 96.
chapter one
the Qurn says, but because of what the Muslims say the Qurn says.
In other words, it is mere exegesis.19
Burtons distinction between what the Qurn says and what Muslims
say, and his characterization of Qurnic exegesis as mere, deserve
comment. The question which must be posed is whether it is possible
to speak of the meanings of the Qurn apart from what its readers or
listeners have understood it to mean. In other words, is it possible to
speak of what the Qurn says apart from the tradition of Qurnic
commentary?
Surely one of the most important scholarly insights in Qurnic Studies in recent years is that the style of the Qurn is allusive and elliptical.20 The Qurnic text frequently lacks words or units of information
which might otherwise be considered essential to a clear expression of
meaning. Muslim scripture gives the impression of being addressed
to an audience which could supply missing details to which the text
only refers.21 Even narrative in the Qurn is often unintelligible without exegetical complement.22 In the case of the tampering verses, the
reader usually encounters ambiguity about many parts of a sentence,
including the identities of the subject and object, and the nature of the
central action.23 As the exegete Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz wrote in expla-
19
The Corruption of the Scriptures, Occasional Papers of the School of Abbasid
Studies 4 (1994), 95.
20
Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 1, 42, 57; idem., Sectarian Milieu, 2425. See also
Rippin, Literary analysis of Qurn, Tafsr, and Sra, 159160; and G.R. Hawting,
The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999), 48.
21
Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 1.
22
Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 131. Wansbrough characterized Muslim scripture
as a torso needing completion by the sra-maghz literature. Sectarian Milieu, 45.
Norman Calder prefered the image of a Chinese painting, in which the missing details
do indeed need to be filled inbut only according to independent structures. Tafsr
from T abar to Ibn Kathr: Problems in the description of a genre, illustrated with
reference to the story of Abraham, in Approaches to the Qurn, G.R. Hawting and
Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, eds. (London: Routledge, 1993), 115.
23
[The Qurn] almost never mentions by name those who ask, challenge, seek
guidance, doubt, or abuse, which is one of the reasons the Qurn has been named a
text without a context. Stefan Wild, The Self-Referentiality of the Qurn: Sura 3:7
as an Exegetical Challenge, in With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Barry D. Walfish,
and Joseph W. Goering, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 422. Matthias
Radscheit, for example, discusses the anonymity of the Qurns polemical passages
and concludes that not only is it difficult to be sure of the identity of the prophets
opponents, but also of the identity of the prophet. Die koranische Herausforderung:
nation of one of the verses to be examined below, the literal sense

(zhir) of the Qurn does not indicate what they actually altered.24
Development Within Early Commentaries
Therefore, instead of asking whether the Islamic doctrine of scriptural
corruption is to be found in the Qurn, the approach of this investigation will be to ask what exegetes have understood the Qurnic
verses of tampering to mean. The rationale for investigating the tampering theme within works of Qurnic commentary alone is related
to the importance of the sacred text in Muslim faith and life. In the
introduction to her study of the theme of Qurnic Christians in a
succession of tafsr works, Jane McAuliffe notes the remarkable proliferation of attempts throughout Islamic history to understand and
appreciate the meanings of the Qurn. She suggests that The sheer
size and linguistic coverage of this religious science clearly indicate
its centrality and significance for charting the development of Islamic
intellectual history.25 Daud Rahbar also made a strong argument for
the importance of tafsr: Truly speaking, the entire history of Islam is
one of exegesis of the Qurn; and it is only by viewing the entire history of Islam in its relation to the Qurn that we can attain any unity
of perspective on that history. All other ways of viewing that history
will present a disjoined and fragmentary picture.26 Investigating the
theme of tah rf in early commentaries on the Qurn will therefore
reveal an essential part of the history of this idea.
Limiting the scope of research to tafsr works also allows the Qurn
to serve as a touchstone for the range of meanings. Norman Calder
called this phenomenon the centripetal force of the quranic text.27
Works in other genres, such as polemic, are free to pursue arguments
without constraint.28 The exegetical tradition, indeed, shows a great
Die tahadd Verse im Rahmen der Polemikpassagen des Korans (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz,
1996), 1423.
24
al-Tafsr al-Kabr (Beirut: Dr Ihy al-Turth al-Arab, 1973), Vol. III, 135.
25
Quranic Christians: An analysis of classical and modern exegesis (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), 8.
26
Reflections on the Tradition of Quranic Exegesis, Muslim World 52 (1962),
298 (Rahbars italics).
27
Tafsr from T abar to Ibn Kathr, 106.
28
The approach of this study is also distinguished from research on the development of the theme of tah rf in a variety of genres, such as biography, polemic and
10
chapter one
freedom of interplay between the Islamic scholastic disciplines and the

text of the Qurn. But finally the text of scripture cannot be ignored.
The study of commentary thus also facilitates the examination of the
views of a professional class of exegetes and its audience. Writers of
other genres used many of the materials also found in Qurnic commentaries, but only the exegetes were explicitly focused on the interpretation of the Qurn.
This study is an exploration of what Muqtil and T abar wrote
about the verses in the Qurn which contain verbs and expressions
of tampering. These two commentaries are highlighted because each
offers an abundance of interesting material related to the tampering
verses.29 This material will then be used to describe the development
of the theme of tampering in the two commentaries. The methodology
appropriate to the study of themes and motifs in the early commentaries on the Qurn is a close reading of the tafsr texts and the analysis
of these texts as works of literature. A tafsr, after all, wrote Norman Calder, is a work of art.30 The particular theme will be investigated not only through what the exegetes have to say about individual
verses, but also as much as possible within the total context of the
commentary. This will then lead to discoveries about the exegetical
approach of the commentator, his way of coming at the meaning of
the text of scripture, and possible larger concerns of which tah rf may
be only one element.
The approach to the tafsr texts pursued here is one of several possible methodologies for reading the early Qurnic commentaries. This
investigation traces the development of a theme or motif, in a similar
historical writing in addition to tafsr. Examples of the investigation of several different genres are Camilla Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From
Ibn Rabban to Ibn H azm (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996); and Theodore Pulcini, Exegesis as
Polemical Discourse: Ibn H azm on Jewish and Christian Scriptures (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1998).
29
The commentaries of Mqatil and T abar are the major works of this genre in
the formative period, and chapters four and five will document the vast amount of
useful material on the tampering theme in these commentaries. Other commentaries
from the formative period, such as those of al-Farr (d. 207/827) and Abd al-Razzq
al-Sann (d. 211/827), do not contain sufficient material on the tampering theme to
warrant separate treatment. However, the comments of these two early exegetes on
the tampering verses will be noted at a number of points.
30
Calder, Tafsr from T abar to Ibn Kathr, 106. Cf. John Burton: exegesis is
entirely and wholly a literary activity. Law and exegesis: The penalty for adultery in
Islam, in Approaches to the Qurn, G.R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, eds.
(London: Routledge, 1993), 269.
11
way to how Biblical scholars have researched themes in the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible or New Testament. The goal is not to study
the early commentaries in order to isolate and analyze different styles
of exegesis, or to trace the use of grammatical terminology, or to look
for evidence of the development of the Qurn, which other scholars
have pursued.
This study is not a search for the original meaning of the Qurn.
The aim is not to demonstrate whether or not corruption has taken
place in pre-Qurnic scriptures, nor whether the Qurn means to say
that Jews and Christians falsified their scriptures. Rather, the objective
here is to show how two early exegetes interpreted the Qurnic verses
which have been associated with the accusation of corruption.31 In
particular, the explanations of verses which contain verbs and expressions of tampering will be described and analyzed. The development
of the tampering theme in this investigation does not mean a development over time within the entire Muslim community, but rather the
development of the theme within each commentary.
Tampering Portrayed Through Narrative
Major scholarly statements on the theme of tampering have characterized the Islamic doctrine of scriptural corruption as a Qurnic accusation, and have stated that the accusation of textual falsification arose
very early in Islamic historyindeed was the first view to be held by
Muslims. In spite of the referential nature of the Qurnic text, and
in spite of the scholarly views described earlier that the words of the
Qurn cannot be understood to mean an accusation of falsification,
these scholars write as if the accusation is clearly made in Muslim
scripture itself. This position is well typified by the articles on Tahrf
in the first and second editions of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, to be
summarized in chapter two. In the first edition, Frants Buhl wrote
about the passages in the Qurn where Muhammad accused the
Jews of falsifying the books of revelation given them, i.e. the Thora,
31
Herbert Berg makes a comparable distinction in his study of T abars Exegesis
of the Qurnic Term al-Kitb, Journal of the American Academy of Religion LXIII
(1995), 761. Berg set himself to explain how T abar and his authorities understood the
word kitb, rather than to say how the term was understood by those who first heard
the Qurn according to Sra and asbb al-nuzl accounts.
12
chapter one
h arraf.32 He further wrote that of the possible positions on tampering held by Muslim scholars, it was the opinion usual in the early centuries after Muhammad that the Jews had actually altered the text.33
Buhl explained that the position of textual corruption was decidedly
the simplest and most logical, for it was based on the first impression
which the words of the Kurn naturally made and had made in the
early days of Islm.34 Thus for Buhl, the earliest view was the harsh
position articulated by Ibn H azm, to be discussed in chapter two.
This claim that the Islamic doctrine of scriptural corruption is an
accusation which the Qurn itself makes continued in the article on
Tahrf published in 1998. Lazarus-Yafeh wrote there, In the Medinan sras [the accusation of forgery] is a central theme.35 Elsewhere
she had written, In the Qurn [the accusation that Jews and Christians
had falsified their Scriptures] is a central theme.36 In a further article, she stated, The contradictions between the Kurnic and Biblical
stories, and the denial of both Jews and Christians that Muhammad
was predicted in their Holy Scriptures, gave rise to the Kurnic
accusation of the falsification of these last by Jews and Christians
respectively.37 The same wording continues into articles published
more recently, such as Abdullah Saeeds article, The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures.38 Saeed begins his article
with the comprehensive expression, the Qurnic accusation that the
scriptures of the Jews and Christians have been falsified, corrupted,
32
Tahrf, Encyclopaedia of Islam, M.Th. Houtsma et al., eds. (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1934), Vol. 4, 618. Buhl added that Muhammad conceived the accusation when the
Jews of Madna did not acknowledge an attestation of his prophethood from the
Torah and instead began to ridicule him.
33
Buhl, Tahrf, 619.
34
Buhl, Tahrf, 619.
35
Tahrf, EI2 (1998), Vol. 10, 111. Lazarus-Yafeh continued, again with unusual
freedom: the accusation was apparently used to explain away the contradictions
between the Bible and the Kurn and to establish that the coming of the Prophet and
the rise of Islam had indeed been predicted in the true scriptures.
36
Intertwined Worlds, 20.
37
Tawrt, EI2 (2000), Vol. 10, 394.
38
Muslim World 92 (2002), 419436.
13
altered and changed.39 Similar phrases appear in other important

scholarly publications.40
Quite to the contrary, exegetes from the formative period of Qurnic
commentary did not in the first instance understand the words of the
Qurn to mean that Jews and Christians had falsified their scriptures.
For these exegetes, the concept of textual corruption was decidedly
not the simplest and most logical, as Buhl claims, nor was it the
natural impression which the words of the Qurn made on them.
On the evidence of the commentaries of Muqtil and T abar, the situation was much more complex than Buhl envisioned. The commentaries develop a wide and lively variety of actions of tampering. They
have little good to say about the communities to whom God entrusted
his revelations in the distant past, and even less good to relate about
those who did not accept the claims of the messenger of Islam. But the
negative evaluations of the People of the Book in the commentaries
do not generally attach to the revealed books themselves. Among the
actions of tampering which the exegetes describe, they transmit traditions about Jewish falsification of the Torah. However, these traditions remain isolated and seemingly tentative amid an array of other
more dominant traditions. The reasons for this, as we shall see, include
the constraints of the Qurnic material on the earlier scriptures, the
vague and ambiguous character of the Qurnic references, uncertainties about the meaning of Arabic expressions, and the influence of
39
Curiously, Saeeds article argues that a selection of classical exegetes did not
understand the Qurn to be making the accusation of falsification. But even so, he
does not qualify his statement at the start of the article.
40
Another example in a major source is Charles J. Adams: ...the Qurn particularly charges the Jews with having corrupted or altered their scriptures....
Qurn: The Text and its History, The Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade, ed.
(New York: Macmillan, 1987), Vol. 12, 171172. Many of the articles in the Encyclopaedia of the Qurn offer similar expressions about both the Qurn and opinions
during the early Muslim centuries. One of the most striking of these is from Gordon
Darnell Newby: Post-qurnic commentators understood the Qurn to regard all
scripture of Jews and Christians as corrupted and thereby to be either rejected or
understood only through the filter of the Qurn itself. Forgery, EQ (2002), Vol. 2,
243. Other examples include Uri Rubin, Children of Israel, Vol. 1 (2001), 305; Gerhard Bwering, Chronology and the Qurn, Vol. 1 (2001), 318; Frederick Denny,
Corruption, Vol. 1 (2001), 440; Shari Lowin, Revision and Alteration, Vol. 4
(2004), 450. But cf. the more carefully nuanced expressions of Kate Zebiri, Polemic
and Polemical Language, 120123; and Camilla Adang, Torah, Vol. 5 (2006), 304.
14
chapter one
structures external to the text of scripturein particular narrative

structures.
The story which these commentators recount is a story of Jewish
resistance to Muslim claims for the prophet of Islam. The exegetical challenge they face is how to interpret the Qurns tampering
verses in such a way as to best reinforce the tale of obstinacy they are
telling.
Chapter two
The doctrine of corruption as a polemical theme

Scholarly study of the doctrine of tah rf has investigated the accusation
as a flashpoint of polemic. Some scholars have included the tampering
motif in broader surveys of polemical themes. Other have focused on
the theme itself. Most have agreed with Ignaz Goldziher that the accusation of scriptural falsification is the central themeor at least one of
the major themesof Muslim external polemic. The major scholarly
books and articles on tah rf highlight a diversity of authors, genres and
eras of Muslim scholarship. Taken together, they constitute a kind of
history of Muslim thought on Judaism and Christianity.
The work of Moritz Steinschneider was pivotal for the scholarly
exploration of the theme of tah rf. He drew attention to a number
of works which discuss the Muslim accusation in his Polemische und
apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache, zwischen Muslimen,
Christen und Juden. Steinschneider provided bibliographical information on such works as those ascribed to Ibn H azm (d. 456/1064),1
al-Ghazl (d. 505/1111),2 and Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328).3 Of particular importance for the study of the corruption charge was his highlighting of Ibn H azms Izhr tabdl al-Yahd wa l-Nasr lil-Tawrt
wa l-Injl wa bayn tanqud m bi-aydhim min dhlika mimm l
yah tamilu l-tawl.4 Steinschneider also included a section on Jewish
literary responses to the Muslim accusations of the Bibles falsification
and abrogation.5
1
Kitb al-fisal f l-milal wa l-ahw wa l-nih al. Polemische und apologetische Literatur, 99101.
2
al-Radd al-jaml al man ghayyara al-Tawrt wa l-Injl. Polemische und apologetische Literatur, 4849.
3
al-Jawb al-sah h li-man baddala dn al-Mash (Sound reply to those who altered
Christs religion). Polemische und apologetische Literatur, 3234, 36.
4
Exposure of the alterations introduced into the Torah and the Gospel by Jews
and Christians, and elucidation of the contradictions [contained in the versions they
possess] thereof, which cannot be explained away through [metaphorical] interpretation. Polemische und apologetische Literatur, 2223, 140.
5
Polemische und apologetische Literatur, 320325.
16
chapter two
The publication of Steinschneiders study provided an occasion

for Goldziher to explore the themes treated in Muslim polemical literature in his article, ber muhammedanische Polemik gegen Ahl
al-kitb.6 Among other prominent themes, Goldziher stressed the
significance of the Muslim accusation that the possessors of earlier
scriptures had changed and falsified the books of revelation in their
possession. He described the accusation of falsification as the principle polemic moment,7 and the primary charge, which Islam raised
against the Ahl al-kitb from the beginning.8 With evident wonder,
Goldziher traced the attempts to reconstruct the original contents
of the Torah, Psalms and Gospel by Muslims who were not familiar
with the scriptures themselves.9 He then pinpointed the importance
of Ibn H azms work Izhr tabdl al-Yahd for the Islamic doctrine
of corruption.10 He also noted the diverse views of al-Shahrastn
(d. 548/1153), Ab al-Abbs al-Sinhj [al-Qarf] (d. 684/1285),11 Ibn
Qayyim al-Jawziyy (d. 751/1350),12 Ibn Khaldn (d. 808/1406) and
al-Maqrz (d. 845/1442),13 and H jj Khalfa (d. 1067/1657)14 on the
question of tampering. While some Muslim polemicists attacked the
authenticity of earlier scriptures, wrote Goldziher, other writersand
indeed sometimes the same writersfound abundant prophecies of
the coming of Muhammad in the copies of the scriptures which were
available to them.15 Goldziher brought the history of the doctrine of
tah rf right up to the second half of the 19th century by describing
the then just-published Turkish translation of the Izhr al-h aqq by
Rahmat Allh al-Hind (181891).16
Ten years after Goldzihers article, Martin Schreiner was still referring extensively to Steinschneiders survey, calling it an eloquent witness to the close contact between Muslims and Jews.17 In the polemic
ZDMG 32 (1878), 341387.

ber muhammedanische Polemik, 344.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Zur Geschichte der Polemik zwischen Juden und Muhammedanern, ZDMG
42 (1888), 591.
6
7
the doctrine of corruption as a polemical theme
17
between those two groups, Schreiner found the prominent points to be

the question of the falsification of the Hebrew Bible, the prophecies of
Muhammad in the earlier scriptures, and the abrogation of the Jewish
law.18 Schreiner discussed the attitude toward the Bible as portrayed
in a number of famous h adth.19 He described the views of the Muslim scholars al-Masd (d. 345/965) and al-Brn (d. 442/1048),20 of
al-Juwayn (d. 478/1085) and al-Ghazl,21 and of Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz
(d. 606/1209).22 He included a substantial section on Ibn H azm, but left
the description of Ibn H azms position on tah rf to Goldziher.23 From
the Jewish side of the controversy, Schreiner presented the polemic of
Saadiy (882943),24 the Karates,25 Jehuda Halw (10751141),26 and
Abraham ibn Dwd (c. 12461316).27 Schreiner felt that by the time
of Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz, Muslim writers had begun to reckon with the
objection of the Jews, who referred to the uninterrupted transmission
of the [Biblical] text.28
Hartwig Hirschfelds shorter 1901 article, Muhammadan Criticism
of the Bible, focused mainly on the accusations of Ibn H azm in his
Book of Religions and Denominations.29 Hirschfeld also provided
translations of passages from Amr ibn Bahr al-Jhiz (d. 255/869)30
and al-Shahrastn.31 He speculated on the influence of Islam on the
Karates, and the influence of the Karates on the Z hirites.32 Finally,
Hirschfeld noted the protest of Maimonides (11351204) to the
Muslim accusation of Jewish falsification of the Torah.33
Zur Geschichte der Polemik, 592.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Jewish Quarterly Review 13 (1901), 225230, 232234.
30
Muhammadan Criticism of the Bible, 230232.
31
Muhammadan Criticism of the Bible, 222. From his Refutation of Christianity.
32
Muhammadan Criticism of the Bible, 223225.
33
Muhammadan Criticism of the Bible, 234235. Hirschfeld also discussed a
number of the Qurnic tampering verses, along with traditions linked to them in
sra and h adth, in the context of his discussion of the Medinan Revelations in New
Researches into the Composition and Exegesis of the Qoran (London: Royal Asiatic
Society, 1902), 103109.
18
19
18
chapter two
Scholarly study of the theme of tah rf took a large step forward

through the publication of the first major article devoted exclusively
to this subject in 1922. Ignazio Di Matteo explored the theme of tah rf
through the works of major commentators on the Qurn as well as
through the works of Muslim polemicists.34 He suggested a historical
development in the doctrine, in which the Qurn and the early traditionists spoke of the authenticity of the Biblical text, while polemicists coming much later were divided. The commentaries which he
examined were those of T abar35 and Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz.36 Di Matteo
found some Muslim polemicists to agree with what he considered the
older view, but shows how other polemicists explained tah rf as the
corruption of the text of scripture. He began his survey of Muslim
polemicists with al-Qsim ibn Ibrhm (d. 246/860) and his Refutation of the Christians.37 Other substantial descriptions of significant
figures include those of al-Brn and his Kitb al-thr al-bqiya,38
Abd Allh al-Turjumn (d. 823/1420) and his Tuh fat al-arb f l-radd
al ahl al-salb,39 and Ab-l-Fadl al-Malik al-Sud (d. 942/1535)
and his Takhjl man h arrafa al-Injl.40 Di Matteo also took note of the
influence of al-H ind and provided a handy summary of his attack on
the Bible in Izh r al-h aqq.41 In the following year, Di Matteo published
a separate article in order to detail the accusations of Ibn H azm.42
The article on Tahrf in the first edition of the Encyclopaedia of
Islam was written by Frants Buhl.43 Buhl used the largest part of the
article to discuss verses from the Qurn which have traditionally been
associated with the tampering theme. He freely characterized these as
accusations made by Muhammad himself, and attempted to provide
34
Il Tahrf od alterazione della Bibbia secondo i musulmani, Bessarione xxxviii
(1922): 64111, 22360. English abstract: M.H. Ananikian, trans., Tahrif or the alteration of the Bible according to the Moslems, The Muslim World 14 (1924): 6184.
35
Il Tahrf od alterazione, 8897.
36
37
Il Tahrf od alterazione, 223226. Di Matteo described this work in more
detail in his Confutazione contro i Cristiani delo Zaydita al-Qsim b. Ibrhm, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 9 (19212), 30164.
38
39
40
41
42
Le pretese contraddizioni della S. Scrittura secondo Ibn H azm, Bessarione 39
(1923), 77127.
43
Encyclopaedia of Islam, M.Th. Houtsma et al., eds. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1934),
Vol. 4, 618619.
19
a historical frameword for the vague way in which Muhammad in

the K urn speaks of falsifications of scriptures by the possessors of a
scripture.44 Buhl wrote that this could best be done with the understanding that Muhammad had at first appealed to the evidence of the
earlier scriptures, but that when the Jews ridiculed his claims, he began
to accuse them of corrupting their scriptures.45 Buhl also indicated the
extent of the diversity of views on tah rf among Muslim scholars, from
the accusation of textual falsification to the theory of erroneous interpretation.
While Schreiner had focused on the controversial material between
Muslims and Jews, Erdmann Fritsch examined the history of Muslim polemic against Christians.46 He devoted a portion of his study
to Der Vorwurf der Bibelflschung.47 He gave special attention to
the reproach made by the later Muslim writers [al-Sinhj] al-Qarf,48
and Ibn Taymiyya, whom he portrayed as following in the footsteps
of Ibn H azm. Fritsch first noted that for the Muslim polemicists Al
ibn Rabban al-T abar (d. 240/855) and al-Jhiz the corruption was to
be found not in the original text of the earlier scriptures, but rather
came from translators and copyists.49 He suggested that these were
good examples of the careful way in which Muslim scholars treated
the question of the falsification of the Bible prior to Ibn H azm.50 But
with Ibn H azm and his followersthe advocates of the radical theory
of falsification, Fritsch called themthe accusation came to include
such sophisticated assertions as the story of Ezras recollection of
the Torah after it was lost,51 rumored discrepancies among Hebrew
Bible, Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch,52 and the impossibility
of the sinful acts of prophets.53 A special feature of Fritschs article, in
Tahrf, 619.
Tahrf, 618.
46
Islam und Christentum im Mittelalter: Beitrge zur Geschichte der muslimi
schen Polemik gegen das Christentum in arabischer Sprache (Breslau: Verlag Mller &
Seiffert, 1930).
47
Islam und Christentum im Mittelalter, 5474.
48
in his al-Ajwiba l-fkhira an al-aswila l-fjira.
49
50
Islam und Christentum im Mittelalter, 57. Fritsch adds later in his book that prior
to Ibn H azm, Muslim polemicists took an unprejudiced approach to the text of the
New Testament. (p. 64)
51
52
53
44
45
20
chapter two
c omparison to other articles to this point, is his extensive description

of polemic against the New Testamentincluding critical discussion
of its canonization,54 denial of its reports of the crucifixion of Jesus,55
and a wide variety of accusations of contradiction.56
A treatment of tah rf which helpfully laid out many materials for
scholarly study was published by two French authors in 1980.57 JeanMarie Gaudeul and Robert Caspar gathered key texts on the theme
and presented them in the Arabic original along with a French translation. The article shows the complexity of the theme within the text
of the Qurn by indicating both the wide range of vocabulary related
to tampering, and the positive references to the earlier scriptures.58
Definitions of the term tah rf are drawn from Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz,
al-Qaffl (d. 365/976), and the modernist Muhammad Abduh (1849
1905).59 The article illustrates the accusation of falsification of the text
of the earlier scriptures with passages from Ibn H azm and al-Juwayn.60
It then presents excerpts from authors who refused to accuse the preQurnic scriptures of corruption but who rather found false interpretation of an intact text: Ibn Sn (d. 428/1037), Ibn Khaldn, and
Muhammad Abduh.61 Caspar closes the article with a discussion of
views of tah rf by such authors as Ibn Khaldn and especially Rashd
Rid (18651935) which show not only a knowledge of traditional
Muslim positions but also some understanding for Christian and Jewish concepts of revelation.62 An additional strength of this article is the
authors careful composition of questions to ask of the material.
Camilla Adang also takes a multi-genre approach to the accusation of tah rf in her Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible:
From Ibn Rabban to Ibn H azm.63 Bracketed by the views of these two
polemicists, her survey of Muslim writers also includes Ibn Qutayba
(d. 276/889), al-Yaqb (d. 292/905), T abar, al-Masd, al-Maqdis
(d. 355/966), al-Bqilln (d. 403/1013) and al-Brn. She thus draws
56
57
Jean-Marie Gaudeul and Robert Caspar, Textes de la tradition musulmane concernant le tahrf (falsification) des critures, Islamochristiana vi (1980), 61104.
58
Textes de la tradition musulmane, 6265.
59
60
61
62
63
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.
54
55
21
information from the disparate genres of historical and chronological writing, polemic and apologetic literature, kalm and tafsr. Adang
divides her subject matter up into the views of the writers on such topics as proofs of prophethood and abrogation. In her chapter on The
question of the authenticity of the Jewish scriptures, she documents a
variety of approaches to the meaning of tah rf.64 As may be expected,
her description of Ibn H azms arguments are particularly thorough.65
In the article on Tahrf in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition,66
Hava Lazarus-Yafeh attempted to summarize the foregoing 120 years
of scholarly descriptions of the doctrine. She enumerated the Qurnic
verses which have been associated with an accusation of tah rf, and
considered some exegetical treatments of the verses. She indicated that
a number of Muslim writers understood tah rf to mean distortion of
the meaning of the text, but suggested that a more common understanding among Muslim authors was falsification of the text itself.
Christians and Jews defended their scriptures from Muslim accusations
of falsification, wrote Lazarus-Yafeh, from an early period. Ibn H azm
produced systematic arguments against the authenticity of the Biblical
text in the fifth Islamic century in his Kitb al-fisal f l-milal. LazarusYafeh notes that the accusation of scriptural forgery was a polemical motif both in pre-Islamic times among Samaritan and Christian
authors, as well as concerning the text of the Qurn between Sunn
and Sh authors.67
Tampering with Meaning, Tampering with Text
The foregoing descriptions of scholarly articles clearly show that Muslim
scholars have made the accusation of tampering with earlier scriptures
a major part of their polemic against Jews and Christians.68 The survey also shows that Muslim writers over the centuries have not been
Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible, 223248.
Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible, 237248.
66
P.J. Bearman et al, eds. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), Vol. 10, 111112.
67
In Intertwined Worlds, Lazarus-Yafeh set a chapter on Muslim arguments against
the Bible in the context of a variety of Muslim approaches to the earlier scriptures,
including study of the Bible in search of the prediction of Muhammad and Islam.
68
Georges Anawati, at the end of yet another fine scholarly survey of Muslim
polemic, remarked on the striking consistency of Muslim objections to Christianity.
The tone of the polemic could vary, he wrote, but never its basic line-up of accusations. He placed the Islamic charge of corruption at the head of the list. Polmique,
64
65
22
chapter two
unanimous on what they have understood by the charge of tampering.

To distinguish the most common views in works from the Muslim
tradition, scholars have employed the terms tah rf al-man, distortion
of the meaning or interpretation of the words of scripture, and tah rf
al-nass, falsification of the text itself.69 Many Muslim writers throughout the history of Islamic scholarship have favored the former conception. Other writers have championed the latter view, some of them to
great effect.70
As representative of the view of tah rf al-man, a number of scholars have highlighted the approach of al-Qsim ibn Ibrhm. Though a
work of polemic, and written relatively early (9th C.), his Refutation
of the Christians envisioned corruption to the interpretation of the
Bible, but not to the text itself.71 Ibn Qutayba also viewed the Torah
as a revealed scripture and an historical source.72 The historian Ibn
Khaldn, in a famous statement near the beginning of his Muqaddimah, wrote that thorough scholars cannot accept the statement
that Jews had altered the Torah, since custom prevents people who
have a (revealed) religion from dealing with their divine scriptures in
such a manner.73 If tampering had taken place in relation to the text
apologie et dialogue islamo-chrtiens: Positions classiques mdivales et positions

contemporaines, Euntes Docete XXII (1969), 448.
69
Lazarus-Yafeh, Tahrf, 112. Gaudeul and Caspar, Textes de la tradition musulmane, 61.
70
Scholars can differ widely in their characterization of the relative strength of these
two approaches in the Muslim tradition. While Lazarus-Yafeh describes the accusation of the falsification of the text as the more common understanding (Tahrf,
111), Jane McAuliffe finds that the assertion of whole-sale textual corruption remains
an uncommon stance. The Qurnic Context of Muslim Biblical Scholarship, Islam
and Christian-Muslim Relations 7 (1996), 153.
71
Lazarus-Yafeh, Tahrf, 112. Buhl, Tahrf, 619. Di Matteo, Confutazione contro i Christiani, 319. Idem., Il tahrf od alterazione, 225. But cf. David Thomas, The
Bible in Early Muslim Anti-Christian Polemic, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations
7 (1996), 3237, 38 n. 28.
72
Camilla Adang, Medieval Muslim Polemics against the Jewish Scriptures, in
Jacques Waardenburg, ed., Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions: A historical survey
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 146.
73
The Muqaddimah, trans. Franz Rosenthal (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1967), Vol. 1, 20. Both Lazarus-Yafeh and McAuliffe note the curious fact that this
statement is omitted from most printed Arabic editions of The Muqaddimah. LazarusYafeh, Tahrf, 112. McAuliffe, The Qurnic Context, 156, n. 33. Ibn Khaldns
statement did not mean, however, that he was encouraging Muslims to read the
Torah. Later in his work he wrote, The religious law has forbidden the study of all
revealed scriptures except the Qurn. The Muqaddimah, Vol. 2, 438.
23
of the Torah, it is confined to its interpretation.74 Another relatively

late medieval writer who favored alteration of the sense over corruption of text was Burhn al-Dn al-Biq (d. 884/1480) in his al-Aqwl
al-qawma f h ukm al-naql min al-kutub al-qadma.75 Muslim writers
who took the approach of tah rf al-man, including Ibn Qutayba and
al-Biq, were more likely to search the Jewish and Christian scriptures for passages which could be read as prophecies of the mission
of Muhammad.
For the view of tah rf al-nass, many scholars have identified the
11th-century Spanish polemicist Ibn H azm as the first to systematize
the doctrine of textual falsification and to offer actual citations from
the Bible in support of his accusation.76 Lazarus-Yafeh explains handily in her Intertwined Worlds that Ibn H azm presented many examples
of what he considered to be chronological and geographical inaccuracies, theological impossibilities, and preposterous behavior of prophets
in the Hebrew Bible.77 Ibn H azm then did the same with the Christian Gospel.78 For many Muslims, his arguments have been convincing. Ibn H azms impact on later Muslim polemics was great, and
the themes which he raised with regard to tah rf and other polemical
ideas...became the standard themes of later Muslim polemical literature against both Jews and Christians.79
One Muslim scholar who wrote in support of the corruption of the
text of the Torah prior to Ibn H azm was al-Maqdis.80 Many subsequent
74
See Goldziher, ber muhammedanische Polemik, 368; and Gaudeul and Caspar,
Textes de la tradition musulmane, 9192. Ibn Khaldns perspective was informed
by a more realistic idea of how the New Testament Gospels came together, and a
greater appreciation for differences in concepts of revelation. The Muqaddimah, Vol. 1,
47677, 192.
75
Di Matteo, Il tahrf od alterazione, 247. Steinschneider describes the work in
76
Goldziher, ber muhammedanische Polemik, 363. Schreiner, Zur Geschichte
der Polemik, 613. Fritsch, Islam und Christentum im Mittelalter, 57. Accad, The
Gospels in the Muslim Discourse, 7273.
77
78
Theodore Pulcini, Exegesis as Polemical Discourse is a full-length description and
analysis of Ibn H azms influential attack.
79
Lazarus-Yafeh, Tahrf, 112. Cf. Zebiri, Polemic and Polemical Language,
123.
80
Adang, Medieval Muslim Polemics, 149151. Adang characterizes al-Maqdiss
attitude toward the Torah as ambivalent, because he also searched for annunciations
of Muhammad in the Torah (149). In contrast to Ibn H azm, al-Maqdis wrote in a
courteous tone and was generally fair and accurate in his descriptions of the beliefs
24
chapter two
Muslim writers echoed Ibn H azms arguments, such as al-Qarf,

Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyy.81 Thus the two tampering accusations appeared to continue on their parallel tracks for more
than half a millennium.82 Then in the mid-19th century, the Muslim
accusation of tah rf al-nass took a kind of quantum leap through the
controversy between Indian Muslim scholars and European Christian
missionaries in the India of the British Raj.
Mawlana Rahmat Allh Kayrnaw (al-Hind, 181891) is credited with moving the textual corruption accusation forward through a
famous public debate and through a widely-published book. Interestingly, the most influential Indian theologian of the modern period,
Shh Wal Allh (170362), had previously declared that he did not
believe in the corruption of the text of the Torah. He had explained
in his Al-Fawz al-kabr f usl al-tafsr that tampering with meaning
means corrupt interpretation (tawl), misconstruing a verse arbitrarily,
and deviation (inh irf) from the straight path.83 Likewise a contemporary of Rahmat Allh, Sayyid Ahmad Khn (181798), conceived of
tampering as referring essentially to interpretation rather than actual
and practices of the Jews (151). al-Maqdis was also candid about his motivation for
making a case to Muslims for the alteration of the text of the Torah: I have explained
all this to you, so that you will not be discouraged when they say that Muhammad is
not mentioned in the Torah (from his Kitb al-Bad wa al-Tarkh, cited in Adang,
Medieval Muslim Polemics, 150).
81
Lazarus-Yafeh, Tahrf, 112. However, Goldziher quotes from a manuscript of
al-Jawziyy the approach to a popular aspect of the tampering accusation taken by this
14th-century student of Ibn Taymiyya: It is an entirely false idea when it is asserted
that Jews and Christians have agreed together to expunge [the name of Muhammad]
out of their scriptures in all the ends of the world where they live. No one among
learned Muslims asserts this, neither has God said anything about this in the Qurn,
nor has any of the Companions, Imams or Qurn scholars expressed himself in this
sense. ber muhammedanische Polemik, 373.
82
Ibn Taymiyya wrote in the 14th century that the Islamic position towards textual corruption was still diverse and ambiguous: If...they [Christians] mean that the
Qurn confirms the textual veracity (alfz) of the scriptural books which they now
possessthat is, the Torah and the Gospelsthis is something which some Muslims
will grant them and which many Muslims will dispute. However, most Muslims will
grant them most of that. Cited by Martin Accad in The Gospels in the Muslim
Discourse, 73.
83
Arabic translation by Muhammad Munr al-Dimashq (Deoband: Mukhtr and
Company, 1986), 7. Cf. G.N. Jalbani, Teachings of Shah Waliyullah of Delhi (Lahore:
Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1967), 9. Shh Wal Allh also discussed the theme of tah rf in
Book VI of his H ujjat Allh al-bligha, English translation in Marcia K. Hermansen,
The Conclusive Argument from God (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), 346352.
25
verbal corruption of the text.84 But neither of these moderate views

had the popular appeal of the case Rahmat Allh made for textual corruption in a public debate which took place in Agra in 1854in the
politically-charged atmosphere just prior to the Mutiny.
Rahmat Allh seized upon a strategic plan for publicly confounding
European Christian missionaries who had been freely preaching and
publishing evangelical faith in northern India during the first half of
the 19th century. For the first time in the history of Muslim polemic,
the Indian theologian used works of historical criticism written in
Europe to support his claim that Christians themselves knew of the
corruption of the Bible.85 The substance of Rahmat Allhs polemic in
the debate, as well as other materials which he had prepared, appeared
in print first in 1853 in the Urdu Ijz-e sw, then more significantly
in 1864 in the Arabic Izh r al-h aqq.86 Kate Zebiri writes that the Arabic work has had a great influence on Muslim polemicists since the
late 19th century: The Izh r is a seminal work for modern Muslim
refutations of Christianity.87 In support of this observation, much of
what M.Y.S. Haddad describes as the material which Arab authors
use to accuse the Torah of corruption comes from the Izhr al-h aqq.
He writes that 20th-century Arab authors did not add substantially to
Rahmat Allhs polemic.88
84
Aziz Ahmad, Islamic Modernism in India and Pakistan (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), 55.
85
Christine Schirrmacher, Muslim Apologetics and the Agra Debates of 1854: A
Nineteenth-century Turning Point, Bulletin of the Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic
Studies 13 (1994), 7484.
86
Avril A. Powell, Muslims and Missionaries in Pre-Mutiny India (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 1993), 294297.
87
Muslims and Christians, 47.
88
Arab Perspectives on Judaism, 103114. An interesting investigation could be
made into the role of external provocation in the polemical achievements of Ibn H azm
and Rahmat Allharguably the two most influential Muslim cases for the corruption
of the text of the Bible. Emilio Garca Gmez wrote that Ibn H azm was reacting to
a work by the Spanish Jew Ibn al-Naghrla which had accused the Qurn of contradictions. Garca Gmez wrote that Ibn H azm had not seen the work he was refuting, but rather was working from what he had read in a previous Muslim refutation
whose author he does not name. Polmica religiosa entre Ibn Hazm e Ibn al-Nagrla,
Al-Andalus 4 (19361939), 16. See also Roger Arnaldez, Controverse dIbn Hazm
contre Ibn Nagrila le Juif, Revue de lOccident musulman et de la Mditerrane 1314
(1973), 4148; and David S. Powers, Reading/misreading one anothers Scriptures,
110111. However, Sarah Stroumsa questions the involvement of Ibn al-Naghrla in
From Muslim Heresy to Jewish-Muslim Polemics: Ibn al-Rwands Kitb al-Dmigh,
Journal of the American Oriental Society 107 (1987), 767772. Rahmat Allhs provocation was the Swiss scholar and missionary Karl Pfander and his polemical work,
26
chapter two
According to scholars of the Muslim tradition, then, discussions of

the tampering theme in Muslim works proceeded mainly along these
lines of tah rf al-man and tah rf al-nass. Or, as Jane McAuliffe has
described it: two parallel trajectories can be traced through the centuries-long interplay of polemic and apologetic which launched these
works. One line of exegetical analysis has occupied itself principally
with scorning the Jewish and Christian scriptures, while the other set
about searching them.89 McAuliffe finds that this inherent tension
has never been directly addressed in the corpus of classical Islamic
thought, nor has that tradition found a way to resolve this lingering
contradiction.90
Verses Connected to the Tampering Theme
Scholars of the Muslim tradition have found that Muslim writers on
both sides of the tampering question connected their statements about
the earlier scriptures with particular verses in the Qurn. Which verses
have been connected with the theme of tampering, and how have those
verses been understood by Muslim exegetes? The following collection
of lists of tampering verses compiled by scholars of Muslim polemic
will help determine which verses have gained the most significance in
Muslim traditionand in turn which passages should be examined in
the tafsr works of the exegetes.
Muslim polemicists have typically based their accusation of scriptural falsification on a series of verses in the Qurn.91 Ignaz GoldMzn al-h aqq, which had been circulating in northern India in Persian and Urdu
translations for more than a decade before the Agra debate. Schirrmacher, Muslim
Apologetics, 76.
89
The Qurnic Context, 144.
90
The Qurnic Context, 153. Kate Zebiri documents the same ambivalence in
her survey of Muslim popular literature on Christianity. She writes that though all of
the authors assert that the text of the Bible is corrupt, all equally appeal to verses from
the Bible to support their viewseither on the basis that some authentic passages
have survived, or because some verses can be reinterpreted rather than rejected, or
simply in order to put forward a hypothetical argument which is based on premises
that ones opponents cant reject. Muslims and Christians, 50.
91
Hirschfeld wrote of Ibn H azm: His object in criticizing the Bible was to substantiate the charges brought by Mohammed against Jews (and Christians) of falsifying
their holy Writs. His strict way of interpreting the Qorn led him to take this accusation in its literal sense.... Mohammedan Criticism, 226. Pulcini adds that in order
to warn Muslim readers against developing a sanguine approach to the Bible from
Qurnic passages which appear favourable to the earlier scriptures, Ibn H azm made
27
ziher wrote, The chief passages which later polemicists maintained

to have been stated regarding this [accusation] are: Q 2:73 [79]; 3:72
[78]; 4:48 [46]; 5:16 [13], 45 [41], 52 [48].92 Other scholars have
observed these versesas well as a wide selection of otherslinked
with the theme of tampering in the Muslim tradition. Moritz Steinschneider drew attention to polemical use of Q 2:75, 79, 159, 174
and 211; 3:78 and 187; 5:15 and 77.93 Hartwig Hirschfeld indicated Q
3:789, 5:44, and 5:63.94 In his exploration of the theme, Ignazio Di
Matteo investigated the exegetical tradition on Q 5:4148, 2:7579,
2:4142, 5:1315 and 4:46.95 Frants Buhl highlighted verses containing
the verbs h arrafa (Q 2:75, 4:46, 5:13 and 5:41); law (Q 3:78, 4:46);
and baddala (Q 2:59, 7:162); and described Q 2:79 as a direct charge
of having falsified the text.96 Josef Horovitz wrote that even in the
K urn we find the Jews reproached with Q 4:46, 5:13, 5:41, 3:71 and
6:91.97 Arthur Jeffery wrote, the charge of tah rf is ultimately based
on a passage in the Qurn (Q 2:70 [75], cf. 4:48 [46], 5:16 [13], 5:45
[41]).98 W.M. Watt discussed the verses containing h arrafa (Q 2:75,
4:46, 5:13, 5:41) and baddala (Q 2:59, 7:162), mentioned the verses of
concealing (Q 2:42, 76, 140, 146, 159, 174; 3:71; 5:15; 6:91), and also
use of Q 2:146, 3:71 and 3:78. Exegesis as Polemical Discourse, 174175. Adang adds
Ibn H azms reference to Q 4:46 (though the phrase Ibn H azm cites is also in Q 5:13
and 5:41). Medieval Muslim Polemics, 152, 159 n. 104. Ibn H azm further attempted
to prove alteration by quoting Q 48:29 (That is their likeness in the Torah, and their
likeness in the Gospel...) and noting that we do not find any of this in [the books]
that the Jews and the Christians possess and which they claim to be the Torah and the
Gospel. In other words, since those earlier scriptures were found not to contain what
a Qurnic verse said they would contain, Ibn H azm judged them to be falsified. The
quotation is from Al-Fisal f l-milal, and is translated in Adang, Medieval Muslim
Polemics, 152.
92
ber muhammedanische Polemik, 344. Goldziher gave the verse numbers based
on Flgels numbering system. The numbers in brackets are the Cairo verse numberings
which are found in most Qurns today.
93
94
Mohammedan Criticism, 223.
95
Il tahrf od Alterazione, 8096.
96
Tahrf, 619.
97
Tawrt, Encyclopaedia of Islam, M.Th. Houtsma et al., eds. (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1934), Vol. 4, 707.
98
Ghevonds Text of the Correspondence between Umar II and Leo III, Harvard
Theological Review 37 (1944): 280. Jeffery has given the Flgel verse numberings. The
Cairo numberings are indicated in brackets. Elsewhere Jeffery indicated the same four
verses, plus Q 2:79 and 3:78, as references to the tampering with Scripture. The
Qurn as Scripture, The Muslim World 40 (1950), 259260.
28
chapter two
indicated Q 2:79 and 3:78.99 Adel-Thodore Khoury cited Q 2:7576,

5:13, and 5:41.100 John Wansbrough highlighted Q 2:59 (like Q 7:162)
as one of many Quranic passages assumed by exegetes to refer to a
conscious and malicious distortion of the word of God.101 Gaudeul
and Caspar grouped the relevant verses in six sries: tah rf at Q 2:75,
4:46, 5:13, 5:41; tabdl, Q 2:59 and 7:162; kitmn, Q 2:42, 2:140, 2:146,
2:159, 2:174, 3:71, 3:187; labs, Q 2:42, 3:71; layy, Q 3:78, 4:46; and
nisyn, Q 5:13, 5:14, 7:53, 7:165.102 Mahmood Ayoub indicated that
Q 2:75, 4:46, 5:13 and 5:41 have been interpreted by Muslims to back
the accusation of alteration.103 Mustansir Mir saw the accusation of
distorting the scriptures as coming from Q 4:46 and 5:41 (tah rf),
Q 3:78 (layy), and Q 5:15 (ikhf).104 John Burton examined exegesis of
the four verses containing the verb h arrafa (Q 2:75, 4:46, 5:13, 5:41),
eight verses containing katama (Q 2:42, 2:140, 2:146, 2:159, 2:174,
3:71, 3:187, 4:37), and one verse with baddala (Q 2:211).105 Stephen
Wasserstrom associated Q 2:75, 4:46, 5:13 and 5:41 with the theory
of tahrif.106 David Thomas cited Q 2:75, 4:46f., 5:13, 5:41, 3:78, and
2:79.107 Camilla Adang writes: The tah rf-verses are S. 2:7579; 4:46;
5:13; 5:41.108 Jean-Louis Dclais linked the following verses with the
eventual doctrine of falsification: Q 2:7579, 3:7778, 4:4446, 5:13,
5:41, 6:91 and 7:161162.109 Hawa Lazarus-Yafeh associates the charge
of tah rf with Q 2:75, 4:46 and 5:13; she further links tabdl with Q 2:59
and 7:162, and law with Q 3:78.110 Pulcini noted changing in Q 2:59,
2:75, 2:79, 4:46, 5:13; twisting in Q 3:78, 4:46; concealing in Q 2:146,
Polemique byzantine contre lIslam (VIIIeXIIIe S.) (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972), 210,
99
100
211.
101
Quranic Studies, 189. Elsewhere Wansbrough noted that the Sra links kitmn
with Q 2:42 and tah rf with 2:75. Sectarian Milieu, 109.
102
103
Uzayr in the Qurn and Muslim Tradition, 16, n. 13.
104
Dictionary of Qurnic Terms and Concepts (New York: Garland Publishing,
Inc., 1987).
105
The Corruption of the Scriptures, 95106.
106
Between Muslim and Jew: The Problem of Symbiosis Under Early Islam (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1995), 174.
107
The Bible in Early Muslim Anti-Christian Polemic, 30.
108
She also indicates verses which accuse of confounding the truth, concealing,
substituting words, and twisting with tongues. Muslim Writers on Judaism, 223n.
109
Les premiers Musulmans face la tradition biblique, 99 n. 38.
110
Tahrf, 111. Elsewhere she draws attention to Q 2:79. Intertwined Worlds,
2021.
29
2:159, 2:174, 3:71, 5:15, 6:91; and forgetting in Q 5:14.111 In a recent

study of the corruption theme, Abdullah Saeed points to Q 2:59, 2:79,
3:78; and, as highlighting tah rf, Q 2:75, 4:46, 5:13, and 5:41.112 Martin Accad describes tah rf as an ambiguous accusation in Q 2:75,
4:46, 5:13 and 5:41.113
Analysis of these scholarly lists shows that the Qurnic verses which
are most frequently associated with the Islamic doctrine of scriptural
corruption are Q 2:75, 4:46, 5:13 and 5:41.114 These four verses are in
fact the verses which contain the Arabic verb h arrafa, of which tah rf
is the verbal noun. Two other verses which appear very frequently in
these lists are Q 3:78 and 2:79.115 Along with these six verses scholars
have indicated some 20 other verses with varying frequency. A striking feature of these lists is that scholars have only cited verses from
Sras 27.
The aim of this study is to investigate the understandings of the
Qurnic verses of tampering among the earliest Muslim commentators. The lists of verses provided by scholars are helpful. However,
since those lists have in many cases been drawn from works of Muslim
polemic, they are not entirely adequate. Determination of the essential commentary passages must somehow incorporate the vocabulary
of scripture itself. The full Qurnic accusation must be culled from
a broad range of verses assembled through the keyword search of
six basic terms and their cognates, terms which carry such connotations as changing, substituting, concealing, confounding, twisting (the
tongue) and forgetting (tah rf, tabdl, kitmn, labs, layy and nisyn).116
Here Jane McAuliffe is referencing, and basically relaying, the verbs of
tampering Gaudeul and Caspar set out in their Textes de la tradition
musulmane.117 This semantic field of tampering will be explored in
chapter 3. Chapters 4 and 5 will describe and analyze how the exegetes
Exegesis as Polemical Discourse, 1415.

The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures, The Muslim
World 92 (2002), 420421.
113
The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse, 72. Cf. idem., Corruption and/or Misinterpretation of the Bible, 6869.
114
Some 18 times each.
115
Some 13 and 12 times, respectively.
116
The Qurnic Context, 144.
117
111
112
30
chapter two
explained the broad range of verses at the intersection of the scholarly lists and the semantic field.
Exegesis During the Formative Period of Islam
During the past 40 years, scholarly access to the commentaries from
the formative period of Qurnic exegesis has greatly improved. Some
of the early tafsr works have only recently become available in printed
editions. When John Wansbrough examined the commentaries of the
formative period in the mid-1970s, most of the texts were in manuscript form. But since the publication of his Quranic Studies in 1977,
all of the significant early texts have been published.118 A number of
published commentaries on the Qurn bear traditional attribution to
Muslim scholars of the second and third Islamic centuries. The precise dating of early tafsr works continues to be a difficult process up
to the present day. But the exegetical work ascribed to Muqtil ibn
Sulaymn, a primary source in this study, appears to be authentic.119
Muqtils Tafsr was edited between 1979 and 1987 by Abd Allh
Mahmd Shihta and published in four volumes in Cairo.120 The
118
Andrew Rippin, Quranic Studies, part IV: Some methodological notes, Method
& Theory in the Study of Religion 9 (1997), 40. In his foreword to a reprinting of
Quranic Studies, Rippin lists and describes some 17 manuscript works used by Wansbrough, almost all of which have now been edited and published. (Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books, 2004), xiixiii, xxxixxli. Fred Leemhuis dates this process of publication to the decade following 1992. Discussion and Debate in Early Commentaries
of the Qurn, in With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Barry D. Walfish, and Joseph
W. Goering, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 322.
119
Andrew Rippin, Tafsr, EI2 (1998), Vol. 10, 86: We are on somewhat firmer
ground for discussion of the formative period of Tafsr with a series of books the
character of which is more cohesive and thus more likely to be authentic, although
certainly not free of later interpolation, reformulation and editorial intrusion. Rippin includes a work ascribed to al-Akhfash al-Awsat (d. 215/830) alongside works
attributed to Muqtil, al-Farr and Abd al-Razzq. Claude Gilliot writes in a similar
vein, Avec le Commentaire de Muqtil b. Sulaymn (m. 150/765) nous sommes dj
en terrain plus sr, mme si le texte dit pose plus dune question. Les dbuts de
lexgse coranique, Revue du monde musulman et de la Mditerrane 58 (1990), 90.
This is also the thesis of the more recent study of Mehmet Akif Ko, A Comparison
of the References to Muqtil b. Sulaymn (150/767) in the Exegesis of al-Thalab
(427/1036) with Muqtils Own Exegesis, Journal of Semitic Studies 53 (2008), 78.
120
C.H.M. Versteegh, Arabic Grammar and Qurnic Exegesis in Early Islam (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), 130. A first volume of this commentary, also edited by Shihta,
appeared in octavo some years before the complete edition. Both Kees Versteegh and
Claude Gilliot report encountering difficulties in trying to avail themselves of the
31
published edition is based on a manuscript associated with the name

of Hudhayl ibn H abb (d. after 190/805) and known as the Iraqi
or Baghdd recension of the commentary. In the introduction to
his 11th-century Qurn commentary al-Kashf wa l-bayn an tafsr
al-Qurn, al-Thalab (d. 427/1035) mentioned three recensions
of Muqtils Tafsr that were (presumably) available to him. One
recension mentioned by al-Thalab shares a key link in the chain
of transmission with the published version (Abd Allh ibn Thbit,
d. 308/920), and is thus thought to be the same as the Baghdd
recension. The second and third recensions mentioned by al-Thalab
are referred to as Irani or Khursn because links in the chains
of transmission are associated with eastern centres such as Merv and
Herat.121 The chain of transmission of the second recension, through
Ishq ibn Ibrhm al-Thalab (not the exegete), is difficult to trace. The
third recension al-Thalab mentioned, however, is associated with the
name of Ab Isma Nh ibn Ab Maryam (d. 173/789), the stepson of
Muqtil. While only the Baghdd recension is known to exist today,
scholars have speculated on the differences between this published
version and the other recensions to which al-Thalab referred.122 For
example, it has been suggested that part of the Khursn version of
Muqtils commentary is contained in the commentary of al-Thalab.123
full commentary. Kees Versteegh, Grammar and Exegesis: The Origins of Kufan
Grammar and the Tafsr Muqtil, Der Islam 67 (1990), 206, n. 1. Claude Gilliot,
Muqtil, grand exgte, traditionniste et thologien maudit, Journal Asiatique 279
(1991), 39, n. 1. Gilliot supposed that the publication was delayed par la censure des
autorits dal-Azhar. Muqtil, grand exgte, 39, n. 1. Cf. Versteegh, Arabic Grammar, 130.
121
Josef van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra: eine
Geschichte des religisen Denkens in frhen Islam (Berlin, 1991), Vol. 2, 51923. Gilliot, Muqtil, grand exgte, 4548. Versteegh, Arabic Grammar, 131.
122
Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft, Vol. 2, 520, 5223. Gilliot, Muqtil, grand exgte, 4548. Versteegh, Arabic Grammar, 131. Ess wrote in 1991 amid his speculations, Solange wir die stliche Rezension nicht vergleichen knnen, drfte es schwer
sein, auf den ursprnglichen Kern durchzustoen. Theologie und Gesellschaft, Vol. 2,
522. One of the hindrances, Ess wrote, was the lack of availability of al-Thalabs commentary (p. 520). Since that time, however, al-Kashf has been published (ed. Sayyid
Kasraw H asan, Beirut 2004), and authors have made use of the complete manuscript
of the commentary in the Beyazit Library, as well as other valuable manuscripts, in
their scholarly investigations. Ko, A Comparison of the References to Muqtil, 69,
n. 1. Walid A. Saleh, The Formation of the Classical Tafsr Tradition: The Qurn commentary of al-Thalab (d. 427/1035) (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 68, 231242.
123
Ko, A Comparison of the References to Muqtil, 78. Cf. Ess, Theologie und
Gesellschaft, Vol. 2, 520.
32
chapter two
Further, Mehmet Akif Ko has carefully examined some 630 references

to Muqtil in al-Thalabs commentary and has concluded that though
there are differences between the Baghdd recension and the references in al-Thalabs commentary, they show no signs of a systematic
ideological effort to revise Muqtils commentary either way.124
Scholars have also speculated about what sorts of materials may
possibly have been added to the Baghdd recension by transmitters
of the manuscript after the death of Muqtil. Several scholars have
suggested for the Baghdadi manuscript a date of 200/815 or later.125
For the purposes of this study, scholarly suggestions regarding the
nature of these possibly-added materials are worth noting. Suggestions
of what might have been added include masoretic interpretation and
close philological treatment,126 variant readings,127 lexical explanations
and legal opinions,128 and grammatical exegesis.129 On the other hand,
scholars of Muqtil appear to be virtually unanimous that the narrative exegesis contained in the earliest manuscripts of the commentary belongs to Muqtil himself.130 Since narrative exegesis makes up a
124
Ko, A Comparison of the References to Muqtil, 93. Ko discusses the speculations of Ess in particular on pp. 78 & 93. A number of the points of similarity are
significant for this study. Ko indicates that al-Thalab transmits some 111 occasions
of revelation from Muqtil, a number which Ko highlights as substantial. A Comparison of the References to Muqtil, 75 & 77.
125
Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 144. Gilliot, Les dbuts de lexgse coranique,
91. Norman Calder, The Umm in Early Islamic Juridic Literature, Der Islam 67
(1990), 113, n. 6. More recently, however, Nicolai Sinai was content to date the manuscript to 760 A.D. Fortschreibung und Auslegung. Studien zur frhen Koraninterpretation (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 171.
126
127
Andrew Rippin, Studying Early Tafsr Texts, Der Islam 72 (1995), 316.
128
Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft, II, 5212.
129
Gilliot, Muqtil, grand exgte, 49.
130
Goldziher, Richtungen, 5860. Paul Nwyia, Exgse coranique et langage mystique:
nouvel essai sur le lexique technique des mystiques musulmans (Beirut: Dar el-Machreq
diteurs, 1970), 617. Andrew Rippin, Tafsr, The Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea
Eliade, ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987), Vol. 14, 238. Fred
Leemhuis, Origins and Early Development of the tafsr Tradition, in Approaches to
the History of the Interpretation of the Qurn, Andrew Rippin, ed. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1988), 29. Idem., The Koran and its Exegesis: From memorising to
learning, in Centres of Learning: Learning and location in pre-modern Europe and the
Near East, Jan Willem Drijvers and A.A. MacDonald, eds. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 97.
Gilliot, Les dbuts de lexgse coranique, 90. Idem., Exegesis of the Qurn: Classical and Medieval, EQ (2002), Vol. 2, 107. Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft, II, 518
19. Versteegh, Grammar and Exegesis, 210. Idem., Arabic Grammar, 130. Regula
Forster, Methoden arabischer Qurnexegese: Muqtil ibn Sulaymn, at-T abar und
33
large part of the Muqtil material examined in chapter 4, and is central

to the argument presented in chapters 6 and 7, this striking scholarly
consensus on the authenticity of the narrative exegesis encourages a
confident examination of these materials.
According to traditional Muslim sources, Muqtil ibn Sulaymn
was born in Balkh, lived in Marw, Baghdd and Basra, and died in
150/767. He is said to have taught in Makka, Damascus and Beirut
as well.131 Muqtils commentary has been described by scholars as
one of the earliest Muslim exegetical works in existence.132 The style of
exegesis it typifies belongs to the most primitive form of commentary
on the Qurn, suggests Kees Versteegh.133 Yeshayahu Goldfeld praised
the Tafsr as probably the best organized and most consistent Islamic
commentary.134 However, Muqtil and his commentary seem to have
lost favour among orthodox Muslim scholarship for a time, based on
the evidence that he is seldom cited for about a century and a half.135 A
number of accusations were made against Muqtil by Muslim scholars,
among them writing about God in anthropomorphic language; using
too much material from the People of the Book; immodestly trying
to specify what is vague and anonymous in scripture; and especially
giving exegetical traditions without a proper isnd.136 These Muslim
Abdarrazzq al-Qshn zu Q 53,118, in Sinnvermittlung: Studien zur Geschichte
von Exegese und Hermeneutik, I.P. Michel and H. Weder, eds. (Zurich: Pano, 2000),
388. Idem., Methoden mittelalterlicher arabischer Qurnexegese am Beispiel von Q
53,118 (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2001), 11. Roberto Tottoli, Biblical Prophets
in the Qurn and Muslim Literature (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2002), 98. Sinai,
Fortschreibung und Auslegung, 1689.
131
M. Plessner-[A. Rippin], Muktil ibn Sulaymn, EI2 (1993), Vol. 7, 508.
132
Yeshayahu Goldfeld, Muqtil Ibn Sulaymn, Bar-Ilan Arabic and Islamic
Studies 2 (1978), xiv. Regula Forster calls the commentary the oldest complete
edited Qurn commentary in good condition. Methoden mittelalterlicher arabischer
Qurnexegese am Beispiel von Q 53, 118 (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2001), 11.
133
Grammar and Exegesis, 210.
134
The Development of Theory on Qurnic Exegesis in Islamic Scholarship,
Studia Islamica 67 (1988), 23.
135
Fred Leemhuis describes Muqtils Tafsr as an interesting source for an early
popular Islam which, perhaps, at the time of its composition was not yet divorced
from orthodoxy. Discussion and Debate, 232. Ko documents how Muslim scholars of the tenth century and later cited Muqtil freely, beginning with al-Mturd
(333/945) and includingnotablyal-Thalab. A Comparison of the References to
Muqtil, 7074.
136
Claude Gilliot, Muqtil, grand exgte, 5068. Cf. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 136; Versteegh, Grammar and Exegesis, 214; Plessner-[Rippin], Muktil ibn
Sulaymn, 508; Goldfeld, Muqtil Ibn Sulaymn, xxviiixxix; H. Birkeland, Old
34
chapter two
accusations influenced some early western scholarly descriptions of

Muqtil;137 and Goldfeld wrote that partly due to this, Orientalism
has not yet paid this work the attention it deserves.138 Muqtil is also
sometimes labeled a Murjiite or a Zaydite, though it is hard to detect
any such tendencies in his writings.139 The edition of the Tafsr Muqtil
ibn Sulaymn used in this study is the Shihta edition printed in Beirut
in 2002.140
The second major commentary of this study is the Jmi al-bayn an
tawl y al-Qurn of Ab Jafar ibn Jarr al-T abar. T abar was born
in 839 at Amul in T abaristan, lived in Baghdd, and died 310/923.
He was a prolific writer and provided the standard history of the first
centuries in Islam, in addition to many other works. Goldziher considered T abar to be one of the greatest characters of Islamic scholarship of all time.141 The great virtues of his History and Commentary
are that they form the most extensive of extant early works of Islamic
scholarship and that they preserve for us the greatest array of citations
from lost sources.142 T abars huge collection of exegetical traditions
became a standard work upon which later commentators frequently
drew. To the present day it is a mine of information for historical and
critical research by western scholars.143 One of the famous Muslim
tributes to T abars Jmi al-Bayn came from the jurist Ab H amd
Muslim Opposition against Interpretation of the Koran, Avhanlinger utgitt av Det

Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, II, Hist.-Filos Klasse, 1955, No. I, 2627. Yeshayahu Goldfeld characterizes the strong criticism of Muqtils commentary as nurtured by envy
and inferiority. The Development of Theory, 23. Interestingly, however, most of
the Muslim jurist-theologians and traditionists who criticized Muqtil for his poor
transmission of traditions also qualify him as a great qurnic commentator! Claude
Gilliot, Exegesis of the Qurn: Classical and Medieval, 106.
137
Notably Goldziher, Richtungen, 5760. Cf. Goldfeld, Muqtil Ibn Sulaymn,
xiv-xv.
138
The Development of Theory, 23.
139
Plessner-[Rippin], Muktil ibn Sulaymn, 508. Cf. Gilliot, Muqtil, grand
exgte, 7981.
140
Tafsr Muqtil, Abd Allh Mahmd Shihta, ed. (Beirut: Massasat al-Trkh
al-Arabiyya, 2002), 5 volumes.
141
Richtungen, 86. Cf. Andrew Rippin, Al-T abar, The Encyclopedia of Religion,
Mircea Eliade, ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1987), Vol. 13, 322: since his lifetime
[T abar] has been seen as the most important intellect of his age.
142
C.E. Bosworth, Al-T abar. EI2 (2000), Vol. 10, 13.
143
R. Paret, al-T abar, Ab Djafar Muhammad ibn Djarr, Encyclopaedia of
Islam, M.Th. Houtsma et al., eds. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1934), Vol. 4, 578.
35
al-Isfaryn (d. 1015): If a person has to go to China to obtain a copy

of this work, it will not have been too much [effort].144
Until relatively recently among western scholars, T abars famous
commentary was considered lost. When Nldeke wrote the first edition of his Geschichte des Qorans in 1860, he could only conjecture and
wish: If we had this work we could do without all later commentaries.
Unfortunately it seems to be completely lost. It was, like the great historical work of the author, an inexhaustible source out of which later
writers drew their wisdom.145 Goldziher later wrote, It was therefore a pleasant surprise for the scholarly world in east and west when,
because of a complete manuscript kept in the book collection of the
Emir of Hil, a full edition of the enormous work was presented in
30 volumes in Cairo in 1903.146 In all, only a few manuscript copies
of the commentary have survived to the present time. The edition of
the commentary referred to in this study is the one edited by Mahmd
Muhammad Shkir and Ahmad Muhammad Shkir.147
For the purposes of this study, T abars Jmi al-Bayn is an appro
priate endpoint because it marks both the beginning of classical
Qurnic commentary and the close of the formative period of Qurnic
exegesis.148 T abars Commentary is an example in its own sphere of
the dividing line between two ages: an introductory period of oral
narrative, and the period of written records, which initiated the closing
in of the exegetical sunna upon itself.149 Abdelmajid Charfi suggested
that with the Jmi al-Bayn Islamic thought settled after a period
in which great freedom of Qurnic interpretation had been permitted.150 Another good reason to end the present study with this work is
that, as Rippin notes, T abars commentary gathers together in a single
144
Cited by Goldziher in Richtungen, 86. Tributes to the commentary continue up
to recent times, for example in Reflections on the Tradition of Quranic Exegesis,
303. There Daud Rahbar writes that T abars commentary is the mother of all commentaries on the Qurn and a thorough analysis of it is due.
145
Cited in Goldziher, Richtungen, 8687.
146
Richtungen, 87. Otto Loth noted that the manuscript was discovered in Cairo
around 1871. T abars Korancommentar, ZDMG 35 (1881), 591. Cf. Heribert Horst,
Zur berlieferung im Korankommentar at-T abars, ZDMG 103 (1953), 290.
147
Ab Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarr al-T abar, Jmi al-bayn an tawl y al-Qurn,
Mahmd Muhammad Shkir and Ahmad Muhammad Shkir, eds. (Cairo, 195569),
16 volumes (incomplete).
148
McAuliffe, Quranic Christians, 13.
149
Abdelmajid Charfi, Christianity in the Quran Commentary of T abar, Islamochristiana 6 (1980), 145.
150
Christianity in the Quran Commentary of T abar, 145.
36
chapter two
volume the major exegetical methodologies employed up until that

point in time, including the methodologies of Muqtil, al-Farr and
Abd al-Razzq.151
The development of the tampering theme in the commentaries of
Muqtil and T abar begins with their explanations of verses which
contain the verbs h arrafa and baddala, from which the technical terms
tah rf and tabdl come. From there the scriptural words of tampering
move out in successive concentric circles into a large semantic field. In
that field verbs and other expressions of tampering jostle with descriptions of the earlier scriptures which appear to be uniformly positive. In
the following chapter the Qurnic material on the earlier scriptures, as
well as the semantic field of tampering, will be explored.
151
Tafsr, The Encyclopedia of Religion, 240. Cf. Gilliot, Exegesis of the Qurn:
Classical and Medieval, 111.
Chapter three
Qurnic References to the Earlier Scriptures

Muslim commentary on the Qurn (tafsr) is a literary genre which
displays certain specific identifiable characteristics. The most straightforward of these characteristics is the inclusion of the entire canonical
text of the Qurn within the tafsr. A tafsr presents the text of scripture, divided into segments and interspersed with the comments of
the exegete. Norman Calder suggested that any work which does not
have this character cannot be said to belong to the central tradition
of tafsr.1
The tafsr genre provides the exegete with certain reassuring parameters. The text of the Qurn exerts a centripetal force2 on his work
of commentary. He may well have the complete text of scripture, or at
least a good part of it, by memory. He works from within this familiar
world of the Qurn, a world just large enough that information found
incompatible with it can be safely excluded.3 The text of scripture fills
his mind with a repertoire of expressions and phrases which he can
use in his exegesis. The two exegetes of this study often explain the
meaning of the Qurn by the Qurn itself,4 using a system of cross
reference to illuminate points of etymology or grammar.
Calder, Tafsr from T abar to Ibn Kathr, 106.
3
Abdelmajid Charfi suggests that T abar followed the Qurnic text without consideration of historical accuracy in its modern sense, and that the Qurn was his
only criterion for judging Christian beliefs and for interpretation of Gospel texts.
Christianity in the Quran Commentary of T abar, 145, 146.
4
Versteegh finds that Muqtils main principle is the explanation of the Qurn
from the Qurn. Grammar and Exegesis, 216. But this is a general principle of
Qurnic commentary up to the present. According to Ibn Taymiyya: If someone asks,
What is the best method of interpretation? the answer is that the soundest method
is that whereby the Quran is interpreted through the Quran. For what is summarily
expressed in one place is expatiated upon in another. What is abridged in one place
is elaborated upon in another. Jane Dammen McAuliffe in Windows on the House of
Islam, John Renard, ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 36, translating
from Ibn Taymiyyas Muqaddima f usl al-tafsr. See also Jane Dammen McAuliffe,
Quranic Hermeneutics: The Views of al-T abar and Ibn Kathr, in Approaches to the
History of the Interpretation of the Qurn, A. Rippin, ed. (Oxford: 1988), 56; and Fred
Leemhuis, The Koran and its Exegesis: From memorising to learning, in Centres of
1
2
38
chapter three
The Muslim scholar who commits to providing a continuous explanation of the text of the Qurn, however, must also submit to the
constraints of the genre. The polemicist or theologian is free to make
any assertions he likes, choosing and citing his authorities as it suits
his argument. But because a tafsr contains the full text of the Qurn,
the exegete cannot ignore the scriptural wordings on subjects which he
is addressing.5 To do so would be to risk the charge of inconsistency
from an astute reader.
In the case of the tampering motif, the Qurn contains a substantial
amount of material referring to earlier scriptures, as well as another
body of material which appears to refer to various actions of tampering. This material needs to be explored in order to envision the
conceptual and terminological environment within which the exegetes
were writing. A larger view of the Qurnic material on the earlier
scriptures will provide a context for the tampering verses which may
in turn facilitate the evaluation of nuances in the commentaries.
This chapter offers a description and analysis of the Qurnic material on both the earlier scriptures and the vocabulary of tampering. The
material on the earlier scriptures will be investigated by word study
techniques which are familiar from Biblical Studies. The language of
tampering will be analyzed through the concept of the semantic field
of tampering. Knowledge of the wider semantic field of tampering
will provide valuable perspective on the verses of tampering and their
exegesis by Muqtil and T abar in subsequent chapters. Some of the
writing in this chapter will be concerned with fine etymological distinctions and careful counting of word frequencies. But this detailed
analysis is necessary in order to set the stage for the discussion of the
tampering verses by the exegetes. Late in the chapter, a chart will set
out the interaction of both groups of material in a visual fashion.
One striking observation, which may be here forecast, is that the
largest concentrations of references to the earlier scriptures come
Learning: Learning and location in pre-modern Europe and the Near East, Jan Willem
Drijvers and A.A. MacDonald, eds. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 101.
5
Charfi notes that Muslim authors writing specifically in refutation of the Christians would choose a position on a theme like tah rf and simply argue it. By contrast, almost all commentators agreed to apply the classical Islamic view of revelation
(wah y wa-tanzl) to the Gospel and the other earlier scriptures. Christianity in the
Quran Commentary of T abar, 146147.
qurnic references to the earlier scriptures
39
in the very sras which contain the highest frequency of verbs and
expressions of tampering. The full implications of this fact, however,
will only become clear at the end of the analysis of the commentary
tampering passages in subsequent chapters.
References to Earlier Scriptures in the Qurn
The Qurn contains a substantial amount of material related to earlier scriptures. Sometimes these scriptures are identified by name;
other times they are identified by the prophet to whom they were
revealed. In other cases, earlier scriptures are indicated by terms
which are less distinct, and these terms were understood in various
ways by the exegetes. In many Qurnic contexts there appears to be a
self-consciousness about the relationship between previous scriptures
and the words which are conceived of as being presently sent down.
Explicit references to earlier scriptures seem to be uniformly positive
and respectful.
Scriptures Mentioned by Name
Three particular earlier scriptures are mentioned by name in the
Qurn: the Tawrt, the Injl, and the Zabr.6 The names Tawrt and
Injl first appear at the beginning of the third Sra, together at Q 3:3.
The name Zabr first appears at Q 4:163.
The term Tawrt appears some 18 times in the Qurn.7 It appears
six times in the third Sra8 and seven times in the fifth Sra,9 but not
at all in Sras one, two, four and six.10 Beyond the fifth Sra, the word
Tawrt occurs only five times.11
Jeffery, The Qurn as Scripture, 202.

Cf. Adang, Torah, 300.
8
At Q 3:3, 48, 50, 65 and 93 (x2).
9
At Q 5:43, 44, 46 (x2), 66, 68 and 110.
10
Though the names of the three previous scriptures do not appear in the second
Sra, Muqtil finds them all referred to already at Q 2:4. He completes the scriptural phrase and what was sent down before you with upon the prophets, meaning
al-Tawrt and al-Injl and al-Zabr. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 84.
11
At Q 7:157, 9:111, 48:29, 61:6 and 62:5. Lazarus-Yafeh asserts that all 18 occurrences appear in sras from the Mednan period. Tawrt, 393. Though the present
study does not rely on the traditional chronology, it is interesting to note the pattern
of occurrence in the first four large sras of the Qurn.
6
7
40
chapter three
The term Injl occurs some 12 times in the Qurn.12 The pattern of
its occurrence is similar to that of the term Tawrt: three times in the
third Sra,13 five times in the fifth Sra,14 and beyond the fifth Sra
only four other times.15 Indeed, in all but two of its occurrences, the
term Injl appears in tandem with Tawrt.16
The singular noun Zabr occurs some three times in the Qurn.
The root z-b-r, however, appears a total of 13 times.17 Its pattern of
occurrence is quite different from the other two names of scriptures:
in the first five sras, Zabr appears only once and its plural form
only once.18 The singular Zabr never appears together with the other
two names of scriptures. If fact, it does not even appear in the near
contexts of the other names.
The pattern of occurrence of the terms Tawrt and Injl, with its
concentration in the first five sras and its sparseness beyond, may
be compared to the patterns of occurrence of the Qurnic terms of
tampering to be described later in this chapter. In particular, the flurry
of occurrences of both terms in Q 5:4368, immediately following the
fourth occurrence of h arrafa at Q 5:41, is worthy of note.
The verses in which these scriptures are mentioned by name provide some basic information about the Qurnic approach to them.
The reader first learns that God sent down the Torah (Tawrt) and
the Gospel (Injl).19 The Torah and the Gospel were revealed after the
time of Abraham.20 Subsequently, God taught s the Torah and the
Gospel,21 and s in turn confirmed the truth of the Torah.22 The Gospel confirms the Torah.23 The Torah contains the command (h ukm)
12
Cf. Sidney H. Griffith, Gospel, EQ (2002), Vol. 2, 342. Karl Ahrens and other
scholars suggest that the Qurnic term Injl comes from the Greek euangelion via the
Ethiopic wangl. Christliches im Qoran, ZDMG 84 (1930), 24.
13
At Q 3:3, 48 and 65.
14
At Q 5:46, 47, 66, 68 & 110.
15
At Q7:157, 9:111, 48:29 and 57:27.
16
Injl appears on its own only at Q 5:47 and 57:27.
17
Cf. J. Horovitz[R. Firestone], Zabr, EI2 (2002), Vol. 11, 372; and Dawid
Knstlinger, Die Namen der Gottes-Schriften im Qurn, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 8
(1937), 7475. The plural form zubur is treated below in Other writings.
18
At Q 4:163 and 3:184, respectively.
19
Q 3:3.
20
Q 3:65.
21
Q 3:48, 5:110.
22
Q 3:50, 61:6.
23
Q 5:46.
41
of God.24 God prescribed for the Jews in the Torah, A life for a life,
an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a
tooth, and for wounds retaliation (Q 5:45).25 Jews and Christians are
said to be able to find the messenger, the umm prophet26 written
with them in the Torah and Gospel.27 The Qurn offers what it terms
a similitude of true believers from the Gospel: like a seed that sends
forth its shoot, then makes it strong, it then becomes thick, and it
stands straight on its stem, delighting the sowersthat he may enrage
the disbelievers with them.28
Of the three Zabr references, we find in two of the verses the
concept that God gave the Zabr to David.29 At Q 21:105 the third
Q 5:43.
Closely resembling Exodus 21:2325; cf. Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21;
cf. J. Horovitz, Tawrt, 706. Another passage which may be claiming to relay words
from the Torahthough that name is not specifiedis Q 2:8384: And when we took
compact with the Children of Israel: You shall not serve any save God; and to be good
to parents.... resembles parts of the Decalogue in Exodus 20. M.S. Seale claims that
the Qurn provides a version of the Ten Commandments, even though an incomplete one at Q 17:2337. How the Quran Interprets the Bible, in his Quran and
Bible: Studies in Interpretation and Dialogue (London: Croom Helm, 1978), 7475.
Hartwig Hirschfeld points out that Muslim commentators like al-Thalab also found
the Decalogue at Q 17:2337, as well as at 6:152154. New Researches, 8182. See
also William M. Brinner, An Islamic Decalogue, in Studies in Islamic and Judaic
Traditions, William M. Brinner and Stephen D. Ricks, eds. (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1986), 6784; and Stefan Schreiner, Der Dekalog in der jdischen Tradition und im
Koran, Kairos 23 (1981), 2430.
26
English translations of Qurnic verses in this chapter are indebted to Arthur
Arberry, The Koran Interpreted (Oxford University Press, 1964); and occasionally
to Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Quran (Karachi: Taj Company, n.d.). However, translations sometimes reflect literal renderings of the Arabic
original.
27
Q 7:157.
28
Q 48:29. Lazarus-Yafeh suggests that this may be a quotation from the Psalms
(cf. Psalms 1:3; 72:16; 92:14). Tawrt, 393. But Carra de Vaux hears in Q 48:29 an
echo of Jesus parable of the sower. Indjl, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, M.Th. Houtsma et al, eds. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1927), Vol. 2, 502. Regarding the Qurnic approach
to the Gospel, Sidney Griffith writes, In a number of passages the Qurn clearly
presumes in its audience a prior knowledge of Gospel characters and narratives.
Gospel, 342.
29
Q 4:163, 17:55. T abar writes on zabr at 4:163: It is the name of the book that
was revealed to David, just as he named the book that was revealed to Moses as the
Tawrt and that which was revealed to Jesus as the Injl and that which was revealed
to Muhammad as the furqn, because that is the name by which what was revealed
to David was known. The Arabs say zabr Dwd, and because of that the rest of the
peoples know this book. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. IX, 402. Muqtil comments on zabr at
Q 4:163: It contains neither statute nor command, neither obligation nor permitted
nor forbidden, [but has] 150 sras. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 423.
24
25
42
chapter three
occurrence of Zabr is set in the form of a saying of God, that he

wrote in that book, The earth shall be the inheritance of my righteous
servants.30
The Book
In addition to references to particular scriptures, the Qurn contains
many references to kitb or al-kitb.31 In some of these occurrences,
there are indications which may suggest a particular book. In other passages, however, it is not clear whether a book is meant, or if so which
book that might be.32 By context, many of the occurrences of kitb
may be reasonably related to one or more of the earlier scriptures.33
A great many occurrences of kitb in the Qurn seem to be referring to verbal material that is conceived of as being given at the time of
the address.34 An example of this would be Q 2:89: When there came
30
Arie Schippers identifies this with Psalm 37:9, 11 and 29. Psalms, EQ (2004),
Vol. 4, 315. Lazarus-Yafeh calls it an exact quote. Tawrt, 393. Horovitz writes,
Apart from Sra xxi.105 the K urn contains other passages bearing a close resemblance to verses from the Psalms, especially from Psalm civ. Moreover the majority
of the passages in the K urn which remind us, by sense and sound, of the Bible, are
from the Psalms. Zabr, Encyclopaedia of Islam, M. Th. Houtsma et al, eds. (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1934), Vol. 4, 1184. See also Hirschfeld, New Researches, 7377; and Richard
Bell, Muhammads Knowledge of the Old Testament, in Presentation Volume to
William Barron Stevenson (Studia Semitica et Orientalia II) (Glasgow: Glasgow University Oriental Society, 1945), 14, for further suggestions of parallels between the
Qurn and the Psalms.
31
Occurrences of kitb both singular and plural number 261. Cf. Daniel Madigan,
Book, EQ (2001), Vol. 1, 242. Jeffery provides an overview of these occurrences in
The Qurn as Scripture, 4755.
32
Wansbrough comments, Kitb as scripture is seldom differentiated in the Qurn,
and exactly which scripture is meant can be elicited only from context. Quranic
Studies, 75. Daniel Madigan argues vigorously that the word kitb seldom signifies a
physical text in the Qurn, but rather that the word is used metaphorically for divine
knowledge and authority. Book, 242251. Idem., The Qurns Self-image: Writing
and authority in Islams scripture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).
33
Herbert Berg observes that for a large number of Qurnic passages that contain
the word kitb, T abar and the early exegetes understood the word to refer to one of
or both of the scriptures of the Jews and Christians, namely the Tawrt and the Injl.
T abars Exegesis, 768. An interesting example of this is when T abar interprets the
phrase in Q 2:2, dhlika al-kitb, general understood by Muslims to refer to the
Qurn. Because it is that kitb rather than this kitb, some of T abars authorities suggested the phrase must refer to the Torah and Gospel. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I,
128129.
34
Julius Augapfel, Das kitb im Qurn, Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des
Morgenlandes xxix (1915), 385386. Cf. Adams, Qurn: The Text and its History,
160161.
43
to them a kitb from God, confirming what was with them. Meaning
literally a writing, kitb is sometimes used in the sense of a letter, a
document of manumission, or a contract.35 The term may also refer to
a decree or prescription.36
When the book is associated with Moses, it is reasonable to assume
that the Torah is in view. The first canonical reference37 of this kind
is at Q 2:53: And when we gave to Moses the book and the criterion
(furqn), that haply you should be guided. The phrase we gave to
Moses the book repeats at Q 2:87, 6:154, 11:110, 17:2, 25:35, 32:23,
and 41:45. At Q 37:117, Aaron is included with Moses in and we gave
them the manifesting book. A similar phrase apparently indicating
the Torah is the book of Moses, at Q 11:17 and 46:11. A third variation is at Q 6:91, Who sent down the book that Moses brought as a
light and a guidance to men?
Other verses of the Qurn offer a variety of clues that the earlier
scriptures may be indicated by the book.38 For example, at Q 2:44 the
Children of Israel are addressed with the question, Will you bid others to piety, and forget yourselves while you recite (tatlna) the book?
The same phrase about reciting the book is used about both Jews and
Christians at Q 2:113. A second verb describes the action at Q 10:94:
35
Jeffery, The Qurn as Scripture, 47. T abar also defines kitb as a writing
in the introduction to his commentary. J. Cooper, trans., The Commentary on the
Qurn by Ab Jafar Muh ammad ibn Jarr al-T abar (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1987), 43.
36
Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 75; cf. Augapfel, Das kitb im Qurn, 393.
37
Throughout this study, Qurnic references are presented in canonical order
based on the understanding that this is the way in which most Muslims learn and read
the Qurn, and the way in which most Muslim commentators present their interpretations of the Qurn. Most Muslim exegetes start at the beginning of the canon,
explain terms, stories and other materials when they first come to them, then refer
to these initial explanations when the same materials come up again later on in their
commentaries. Cf. Jane McAuliffe, The Prediction and Prefiguration of Muhammad,
in Bible and Qurn: Essays in scriptural intertextuality, John C. Reeves, ed. (Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 113. Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike have
indeed developed elaborate chronologies for the initial recitation of the sras of the
Qurn. However, none of the systems of chronological sequencing of qurnic chapters and verses has been accepted universally by contemporary scholarship. Gerhard
Bwering, Chronology and the Qurn, EQ (2001), Vol. 1, 325. Wansbrough asked
if a critical assessment had been made of the basic principle of whether a chronology
of Muslim scripture is feasible. Quranic Studies, 126. In any case, the focus of this
study is not the development of the tampering theme within the Qurn according to
accepted schemes of chronology, but rather the development of that theme by Muslim
exegetes within works of tafsr.
38
Augapfel, Das kitb im Qurn, 386390.
44
chapter three
If thou art in doubt regarding what we have sent down to thee, ask
those who recite (yaqrana) the book before thee. At Q 6:156, the
book seems to indicate a more elastic concept: The book was sent
down only upon two parties before us, and we have indeed been heedless of their study (dirsa). All of these verses could be reasonably
interpreted to allude to the Torah and/or the Gospel.
The phrase the book of God occurs some nine times in the
Qurn. From its context at Q 5:44, this phrase seems to indicate the
Torah: Surely we sent down the Torah, wherein is guidance and light;
thereby the prophets who had surrendered themselves gave judgment
for those of Jewry, as did the masters and the rabbis, following such
portion of the book of God as they were given to keep and were witnesses to. At Q 2:101, a party of them that were given the book reject
the book of God behind their backs. It would be reasonable to assume
that the phrase here refers to an earlier scripture.39 Other occurrences
of the phrase are more difficult to identify, and this is reflected by an
ambivalence in the exegetical tradition.40
In Q 2:177, true piety is described as, among other things, believing in God and the last day, and the angels, and the book (kitb), and
the messengers. A similar formula appears twice in the Qurn with
kitb in the plural. The messenger believes in God, his angels, his
books (kutub) and his messengers.41 In Q 66:12, Mary confirmed the
words of her Lord and his books. A further use of the plural comes
in Q 98:23: A messenger from God, reciting pages (suh uf) purified,
therein true books.42 These and other occurrences of kitb do not
seem to come with the suggestion that a corrupted text is in mind,
or that an earlier scripture has been or is in the process of being corrupted. The straightforward impression to take from them is that the
writings or prescriptions being alluded to are thought of in a positive
and respectful way.
39
At Q 2:101, Muqtil explains the book of God as what is in the Torah from
the matter (amr) of Muhammad. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 126.
40
Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 75. See Berg, T abars Exegesis, 772773 on
kitb allh: in his commentary to the Qurns use of the expression the kitb of
God, al-T abar explains the term using the full variation of the term kitb generally
except, oddly, the Qurn itself. (773) At the occurrence of the kitb of God in
Q 3:23, T abar explicitly says, it is the Torah. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 290.
41
Q 2:285; cf. 4:136, where the belief is both in the book which God sent down
before, and in the books of God.
42
These are four of the five occurrences of kutub in the Qurn. The fifth is at
Q 34:44.
45
Other Writings
The Qurn also contains a number of other terms for written records
which may be understood to refer for earlier scriptures. These include
references to scrolls, parchments, tablets and revealed books.43 For
example, Q 53:3637 mentions the scrolls (suh uf) of Moses and Abraham. The same writings are called the former pages (suh uf al-l) at
Q 87:18.44 There is also mention of parchments at Q 6:91 in connection
with the book which Moses brought: You put it into parchments
(qarts).45 A second word for parchment appears at Q 52:13: By the
Mount (T r) and a book inscribed in a parchment (raqq) unrolled.46
The word tablets (alwh ) comes three times in Sra 7 in the context
of an extended narrative about Moses and the Children of Israel. At
Q 7:145, God declares, We wrote for him on the tablets (al-alwh )47
of everything an admonition (mawiza), and a distinguishing (tafsl) of
everything. In the meantime the Children of Israel make a golden calf
and Moses discovers it. He puts down the tablets (Q 7:150) in order
to discipline his brother Aaron. His prayer to God seems to calm him
down. And when Moses anger abated in him, he took the tablets; and
in the inscription (nuskha)48 of them was guidance (hudan), and mercy
(rah ma) unto all those who hold their Lord in awe (Q 7:154).49
Another term for revealed writings, al-zubur, appears at Q 3:184,
16:44 and 35:25; at 26:196 it comes in a possessive construction, the
scriptures of the ancients (al-awwaln).50 Two of these verses put the
term zubur in a parallel relationship with the clear signs (bayyint)
43
Knstlinger, Die Namen der Gottes-Schriften im Qurn, 7184, gives a wide
variety of terms which he says refer to scripture in the Qurn. Besides those treated
here, Knstlinger investigates such terms as dhikr, h ikma, furqn, qawl, and ya.
44
Madigan, Book, 245. The phrase al-suh f al-l also appears at Q 20:133. Further on suh uf: Knstlinger, Die Namen der Gottes-Schriften im Qurn, 7274.
45
The second occurrence of this word is at Q 6:7: had we sent down on thee a
book on parchment (qirtsin)....
46
An hapax legomenon. On parchment, see Julian Obermann, Koran and Agada:
The Events at Mount Sinai, The American Journal of Semitic Languages lvii (1941), 30.
47
See Obermann, Koran and Agada, 37, on tablets.
48
Translation of Arberry and Pickthall. Nuskha is also defined as transcript or
copy.
49
Of the remaining three occurrences of this root in the Qurn, one is the singular
lawh in, Nay, but it is a glorious Qurn in a guarded tablet (Q 85:2122).
50
Horowitz, Zabr, 1184. Horowitz adds that occurrences of al-zubur at Q 54:43
& 52 refer to heavenly writings in which human deeds are recorded.
46
chapter three
and the illuminating book (al-kitb al-munr).51 A third occurrence

lists zubur with the clear signs and the remembrance (al-dhikr).52
At Q 26:196 the term could be said to be in parallel with the revelation (tanzl) in Q 26:192.53
The Word of God
From among other expressions in the Qurn which might be taken to
allude to the previous scriptures, mention should be made of kalm
and kalim. These words appear in the h arrafa passages to be studied
later; and Muslim exegetes, including those examined in this investigation, sometimes identify these terms with particular scriptures.
Of the four occurrences of kalim (words; utterances)54 in Muslim
scripture, three occurrences come in three of the four h arrafa verses
in focus in this study (Q 4:46, 5:13, 5:41).55 Kalim is the object of the
tampering verb in these verses. The fourth occurrence is at Q 35:10:
Whosoever desires glory, the glory altogether belongs to God. To him
good words (kalim) go up, and the righteous deedhe uplifts it.
The term kalm (speech, word) similarly occurs only four times in
the Qurn, always in association with God. One of those occurrences
comes in the first h arrafa verse of this study (Q 2:75), where it is also
the object of the tampering verb. A second occurrence is explicitly
linked with Gods revelation to Moses: He said, Moses, I have chosen
thee above all men for my messages and my utterance (kalm); take
what I have given thee, and be of the thankful. And we wrote for him
on the tablets of everything of admonition, and a distinguishing of
everything (Q 7:144145). The other two appearances of kalm Allh
do not seem to be associated with an earlier revelation, but rather with
a Muslim statement of faith (Q 9:6) and a commandment to fight
(Q 48:15).
Q 3:184, 35:25.
Q 16:44.
53
Cf. Horowitz[Firestone], Zabr, 372.
54
Collective form of kalima.
55
Wansbrough commented that in these verses, kalim requires to be understood
as scripture. Quranic Studies, 76. Thomas OShaughnessy agreed that kalim refers
to the revealed words of the Torah. The Koranic Concept of the Word of God (Rome:
Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1948), 16. Investigation of the commentaries below will
reveal whether Muqtil and T abar understood the term thus.
51
52
47
The Claim of Confirmation

Another indication of the approach to the earlier scriptures in the
Qurn comes from the language of confirmation. A series of verses
seems to claim that what God is now revealing to the addressees of the
Qurn has essential links to revelations of the past.
The term musaddiq, from saddaqa, means confirming, attesting,
or pronouncing to be true,56 as in its first Qurnic appearance, And
believe in that I have sent down, confirming (musaddiqan) that which
is with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it (Q 2:41). This active
participle occurs some 18 times in the Qurn. Of that total, 14 occurrences are distributed throughout Sras 26. Beyond Sra 6 there are
four occurrences, two of them in Sra 46.57 In addition to this, the
term tasdq,58 verbal noun of saddaqa, appears at Q 10:37 and 12:111.
The object of the participle and verbal noun is generally one of a
number of indistinct phrases which could be understood to refer to
earlier scriptures. The most frequent object is m bayna yadayhi 59 and
similar phrases at Q 2:97; 3:3, 50; 5:48; 6:92; 35:31; 46:30; and 61:6. A
second frequent object is what is with them60 and similar phrases
at Q 2:41, 89, 91, 101; 3:81; and 4:47. The subject of confirmation in
those verses is generally what I have sent down (Q 2:41) and similar phrases. A book (kitb) or the book is frequently specified; at
Q 2:89 a book from God; and in one of the tasdq verses, this
qurn (Q 10:27). Other subjects include a messenger (Q 3:81) and
a messenger from God (Q 2:101).
The Torah appears as the object of confirmation at Q 3:50, 5:46
and 61:6. In those verses, the subjects are s and the scripture sent
down upon him, the Injl. At Q 46:12, the Torah is updated by hdha
kitb: Before it was the book of Moses for a model and a mercy; and
this is a book confirming, in Arabic tongue, to warn the evildoers, and
good tidings to the good-doers.61 At Q 3:39, angels say to Zakariyya,
56
Wansbrough renders musaddiq as verification of earlier prophets and scriptures, Quranic Studies, 65.
57
At Q 6:92, 35:31, 46:12 & 30, and 61:6.
58
Confirmation, attestation; belief; assent, agreement, approval.
59
Frequently translated that which was before it, but which means literally
what is between his two hands. Madigan renders it ...what is already present. The
Qurns Self-Image, 137.
60
m maahum.
61
An exegetically justifiable paraphrase for this would read: Before the Qurn
was the Tawrh as a guide and a mercy. This Qurn is a book in an Arabic tongue
48
chapter three
God gives you good tidings of Yahy, confirming a word (kalima)

from God.
In two of the verses there appear parallel phrases which shed light
on the meaning of confirmation. The first is at Q 5:48: We sent to you
the book in truth, confirming (musaddiq) what is before it from the
book, and guarding it in safety (muhaymin). The second is at Q 10:37:
it is a confirmation (tasdq) of what is before it, and a distinguishing
(tafsl) of the book, wherein is no doubt.
The impression given by these verses containing musaddiq or tasdq
is that the revelation conceived of as being sent down by God in the
present is thought to align with what God has sent down in the past.62
There seems to be a claim of correspondence. These verses vouch for
the truth of earlier revelations, which is the sense of saddaqa. At the
same time these verses bring the authority of past revelations to bear
on the present revelation. This helps the reader understand the context for the verses of tampering in the Qurn, and also indicates one
expression which may have been in the minds of the exegetes when
they set about to explain the meaning of the verses of tampering.
Characterizations of the Earlier Scriptures
The Qurn provides qualitative descriptions of the earlier scriptures
which appear to be uniformly respectful. A striking example is at
Q 6:154: Then we gave Moses the book, complete for him who does
good, and distinguishing every thing, and as a guidance (hudan)
and a mercy (rah ma). These and other epithets repeat throughout
the Qurn. The Torah is characterized as containing guidance and
light (nr).63 The same phrase is used to describe the contents of
the Gospel.64 The Gospel is also called a guidance and an admonition (mawiza) to the godfearing.65 The Torah is said to contain the
judgment (h ukm) of God.66 The book given to Moses is described
as a guidance to the Children of Israel.67 God also gave the book of
which confirms the Tawrh in order to warn.... McAuliffe, The Qurnic Con
text, 142.
62
The general position of the Qurn is that it confirms previous revelations, and
in particular...of the Torah and the Evangel. Watt, The Early Attitude, 50.
63
Q 5:44.
64
Q 5:46.
65
Q 5:46.
66
Q 5:43.
67
Q 17:2, 32:23.
49
Moses for a standard (imm) and a mercy.68 The tablets which God
wrote for Moses contain an admonition and a distinguishing (tafsl)
of everything.69 The book given to Moses and Aaron is described as
the manifesting (mustabn) book.70
In other contexts, the Qurnic approach to the earlier scriptures can
be seen in the actions which are associated with them. At Q 3:93, for
example, is an appeal to opponents in the midst of a polemical situation to Bring you the Torah now, and recite it, if you are truthful.71 A
similar understanding is given at Q 10:94: If you are in doubt regarding
what we have sent down to you, ask those who recite the book before
you. These verses seem to indicate that the Torah was readily available, and could be produced to resolve disputes or answer questions.72
They also suggest a measure of authority to the contents of Torah. A
third situation of this type is in view at Q 5:43, where the Torah is said
to be with (inda) the Jews, and to contain Gods decision. At Q 5:44,
the prophets and religious leaders of the Jews are said to have judged
the Jews according to the Torah, and these leaders were entrusted
with the protection of the book of God.73 Similarly, the people of
the Gospel are urged to make their judgments according to the contents of Gospel.74 All of the People of the Book are also challenged to
stand fast or act according to the Torah and Gospel.75
These Qurnic descriptions of the earlier scriptures appear to be
uniformly positive and respectful.76 The most natural impression to
Q 11:17, 46:12.
Q 7:145.
70
Q 37:117.
71
Brannon Wheeler writes on Q 3:93, At issue is not the revelatory status of the
Torah or the accusation that the text of the Torah has been altered. On the contrary,
the exegesis of Q 3:93 depends on the Torah to make its case. Israel and the Torah of
Muhammad, in Bible and Qurn: Essays in scriptural intertextuality, John C. Reeves,
ed. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 79.
72
Camilla Adang adds to this category Q 16:43 and 21:7: Ask the people of the
remembrance (dhikr) if you dont know! Torah, 303.
73
But cf. Q 62:5The likeness of those who have been loaded with the Torah,
then they have not carried it, is as the likeness of an ass carrying books.
74
Q 5:47.
75
Q 5:66 & 68. Cf. 7:169, in the context of a narrative about the Children of Israel:
And those who hold fast to the kitb, and perform the prayersurely we leave not
to waste the wage of those who set aright.
76
Lazarus-Yafeh wrote: The Kurn accepts the Tawrt and Indjl as genuine divine revelations taken from the same Guarded Tablets as the Kurn itself and brought
by true messengers to both Jews and Christians respectively. Tahrf, 111. Carra de
Vaux referred to the great reverence with which the Qurn speaks of the Gospel.
68
69
50
chapter three
take from them would be that they represent a conception of sacred

texts which are available and intact. There does not seem to be any
hint, in any of the verses mentioned above, that the recitations which
are conceived of as being presently sent down contradict the contents of the earlier scriptures. There is no evident suggestion in these
verses that any of the scriptures exists in an altered state. The associations of the terms kalm and kalim (word/words) with the verb
h arrafa will be thoroughly examined below. Otherwise, the references
to earlier scriptures in the Qurn would not seem to trigger thoughts
of their corruption.
These descriptions of the earlier scriptures in turn provide a context
for the exegetical development of the motif of tampering. The exegete
who wants to write about the earlier scriptures will be constrained to
keep in mind what the Qurn itself says about them. If he chooses to
go against the characterizations found in Muslim scripture, he risks
his readers accusation of contradicting the word of God.
The Semantic Field of Tampering
In the Qurn there is also a range of language which appears to indicate a variety of actions of tampering. The precise explanation of these
actions is not given in the Qurn, nor are the actors or the objects of
their actions frequently specified. Yet a number of verbs and associated expressions seem to work together to form a semantic field of
tampering. An accurate investigation of the dimensions of this seman-
Indjl, 503. William Muir concluded, after an extensive survey of Qurnic passages
which refer to the earlier scriptures, The highest value is attributed by the Corn to
the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. They are always spoken of with veneration. There
is not a single expression regarding them throughout the Corn, but what is dictated
by profound respect and reverence. The Corn: Its Composition and Teaching; And
the Testimony it Bears to the Holy Scriptures (London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 1895), 222. More recently, Abdullah Saeed has echoed Muirs conclusion:
In no verse in the Qurn is there a denigrating remark about the scriptures of the
Jews and Christians. Instead, there is respect and reverence. Any disparaging remarks
were about the People of the Book, individuals or groups, and their actions. The
Charge of Distortion, 429. Matthias Radscheit, reflecting on the impression left by the
Qurnic material related to tampering with scriptures, writes, That it did not mean
falsification of the fixed written Torah or Gospel shows itselfnegativelyin that
tah rf is never connected explicitly with these books, andpositivelyby the verses
which exhort the ahl al-kitb to hold to what is in their scriptures. Die koranische
Herausforderung, 8283.
51
tic field in the Qurn is crucial for determining which passages in the
commentaries must be examined for the exegetical development of the
tampering motif.
Various scholars have indicated the roots which might be considered essential to the semantic field of tampering. Wansbrough identified three roots: kitmn, tabdl and tah rf.77 Buhl also indicated three
roots, but not the same three: in place of kitmn he put layy.78 LazarusYafeh included the three roots of Wansbrough, and added layy.79
Mustansir Mir drew attention to tah rf, layy and ikhf.80 Caspar and
Gaudeul identified a larger field of six roots which relate to alteration:
tah rf, tabdl, kitmn, labs, layy, and nisyn.81 This part of the study
will investigate all seven roots identified by these scholars, plus a third
verb of concealment, asarra.
The methodology for studying a semantic field is set out by Toshihiko Izutsu in his Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qurn.82 Izutsu calls
his method of semantic analysis a contextual interpretation in which
the semantic category of a word is described in terms of the conditions
in which it is used.83 The aim of the procedure is To bring together,
compare, and put in relation all the terms that resemble, oppose, and
correspond with each other.84 Not every context is helpful for determining the meaning of a word, but Izutsu identifies seven cases in
which a passage may assume strategic importance for the method
of semantic analysis.85 The passage may contain a contextual definition of the word in question. Failing that, there may be a synonym
or another term in parallel relationship with the word. Meaning can
also be drawn from a contrasting term or from the negative form of
the word. Further meaning may come from a semantic cluster from
which the term in focus appears to be inseparable. The use of a word
in a non-religious context may also shed light on its meaning in a
religious context.
Sectarian Milieu, 109.

Tahrf, (EI1), 618619.
79
Tahrf, (EI2), 111.
80
Dictionary of Qurnic Terms and Concepts, 55.
81
Textes de la tradition musulmane, 6263; affirmed in McAuliffe, The Qurnic
Context, 144.
82
(Montreal: McGill University Press, 1966), 3541.
83
Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qurn, 13.
84
85
Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qurn, 37f.
77
78
52
chapter three
Izutsu defines a semantic field as any set of patterned semantic relations between certain words of a language. He writes, A word rarely
stands aloof from others and maintains its existence all alone; on the
contrary, words manifest everywhere a very marked tendency to combine with certain others in the contexts of occurrence.86 It will be
seen in this study that the eight verbal roots of tampering begin very
quickly to interact and entangle. Their meanings also seem to be influenced by the objects attached to them, and by repeating idioms and
associated verbs in the surrounding contexts.
The eight roots will be studied generally in the order in which they
appear canonically in the Qurn. However, the verbs of concealment
will be grouped together. In examining each of the roots, major attention will be given to usages which might be reasonably connected with
the theme of tampering with the revelation of God. Some observations
will also be made on other theological uses, or even on mundane uses
if these seem helpful for clarifying meaning. At the end of this section
the occurrences of the various terms in the semantic field of tampering in Sras 27, as well as indications of earlier scriptures in the same
sras, will be set out in the form of a chart.
Labasa, to confound
The first root in the semantic field of tampering to appear in the Qurn
is the verb labasa. It occurs in the form of a command, Do not confound (talbis) the truth (h aqq) with vanity (btil) (Q 2:42). The context is the beginning of a long passage addressed to the Children of
Israel. The same phrase comes at Q 3:71 in the form of a challenge to
the Children of Israel, Why do you confound the truth with vanity?
Labasa means to confuse, bewilder, or confound, a person, or to fill
a person with doubts.87 This verb occurs seven times in the Qurn,
and five of those occurrences are in Sra 6. In addition to truth,
the objects of labasa include belief (mn) (Q 6:82) and religion (dn)
(Q 6:138). God is the subject of labasa at Q 6:9 & 65: We would
certainly have confused for them the thing which they themselves are

WKAS, Band II, Teil 1, 128. Labasa is given in WKAS as the second meaning of
the verb labisa. WKAS, Band II, Teil 1, 128129.
86
87
53
confusing (Q 6:9).88 Where a second object marked by bi- occurs,

as in Q 2:42 and 3:71, labasa means to make something confused by
means of another thing; or to mix, jumble, tangle something up with
another thing.89 The verbal noun labs means confusion, perplexity,
obscurity or doubtfulness.90 It appears once, at Q 50:15: they are in
uncertainty (labs) as to the new creation.
Verbs of Concealing: katama, asarra, akhf
Three verbs for concealing make up a significant part of the semantic
field of tampering. The verb katama appears just after the first occurrence of labasa, in the very same verse. The context is a diatribe against
the Children of Israel, and the audience is commanded, do not conceal (katama) the truth (h aqq) willingly (Q 2:42). This phrase appears
together in a parallel construction with do not confound, and thus
seems to take from it the sense of hiding for the sake of confusing.91
In the Qurn, the root katama appears only in Form I, which means
to conceal or keep secret.92 All of the 21 Qurnic occurrences of this
rootbut oneare in the imperfect. The verbal noun kitmn does not
appear in the Qurn.
Truth is the object of that first significant appearance of katama
in the Qurn. This might be understood to refer to an earlier scripture, because immediately preceding the imperative to not conceal is
another command, believe in that I have sent down, confirming that
which is with you (Q 2:41). Verb and object, as well as adverb, appear
again in Q 2:146: there is a party of them conceal the truth and that
wittingly. Preceding this statement in the immediate context is the
phrase, the evildoers whom we have given the book (Q 2:1456).
All three words appear a third time in a polemical question in Q 3:71,
People of the Book! Why do you...conceal the truth and that wittingly? This verse comes right after another question, Why do you
disbelieve in Gods signs (yt) (Q 3:70).
88
T abar pulls in this phrase from Q 6:9 to explain the first occurrence of labasa at
Q 2:42. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 567.
89
WKAS, Band II, Teil 1, 128.
90
91
Rudi Paret, Der Koran: Kommentar und Konkordanz (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1980), 18.
92
WKAS, Band I, 50.
54
chapter three
Another object which could be taken to refer to earlier revelation

is testimony: And who does greater evil than he who conceals
(katama) a testimony (shahda) received from God? (Q 2:140). Other
objects which may perhaps refer to Gods revelation are the clear
signs (bayyint) and the guidance (hud): Those who conceal the
clear signs and the guidance that We have sent down, after we have
shown them clearly in the bookthey shall be cursed by God and the
cursers (Q 2:159).
The book (kitb) is specified as the object of katama in Q 2:174:
Those who conceal what of the book God has sent down on them,
and sell it for a little price. The same object seems to be in view in
Q 3:187, where the audience is described as those who had been given
the book. The message is, You shall make it clear unto the people,
and not conceal it. This use of conceal is associated in this verse
with rejecting the book behind their backs and selling the book for
a small price.
Uses of katama which do not seem to be related to Gods revelation
include the very first canonical appearance of the root in Q 2:33. In
an account of Adams naming, God tells the angels, I know what
things you reveal, and what you were hiding. This and similar phrases
are used to indicate that God knows what is hidden to human view,
for example the thoughts of people who enter houses not their own
(Q 24:29). In the story of Gods command to the Children of Israel to
sacrifice a cow, the inner thoughts of the people were exposed: God
disclosed what you were hiding (Q 2:72). On the Day of Judgment,
unbelievers will not be able to conceal from God one tiding (Q 4:42).
One subset of this category of uses of katama would be the hiding
of thoughts before the messenger. In Q 3:167, people hide their true
thoughts in the heart when giving a reason for not fighting. The People
of the Book profess faith in the messenger, but they in fact do not
believe, and God knows very well what they were hiding (Q 5:61).
Non-theological uses of katama also help to bring out its meaning.
For example, the object of concealment in Q 5:106 is the testimony of
God (cf. Q 2:284), but the context is legal and a bequeathing at the
time of death is intended. Similarly, a pledge or trust is concealed
in Q 2:284. In Q 4:37, the niggardly appear to conceal their wealth.
At Q 2:228, in the context of a ruling on divorce, it is not lawful for
women to hide what God has created in their wombs.
The verb katama appears several times together with contrasting
verbs. Examples given above include Q 2:33: I know what things you
55
reveal (tubdna), and what you were hiding. The verb abd means
to disclose, reveal, manifest. Another contrasting verb is bayyana in
Q 3:187: ...to make it clear (tubayyinunnahu) unto the people, and
not conceal it. And a third pairing comes at Q 21:110, Surely he
knows what is spoken aloud (jahra) and he knows what you hide.
Jahra is the verbal noun of jahara, which means to be brought to
light; to declare publicly, announce. These three contrasting verbs
suggest that the fault of katama is a failure of various groups or individuals to make public a truth in their possession.
The pattern of katama in the Qurn appears to be worth noting.
Of the 21 occurrences of this verbal root, nearly halftencome in
the second Sra. The verb appears three times in the third Sra, twice
in the fourth Sra, three times in the fifth, and only three times elsewhere. This allows the root to establish its presence and significance
firmly early in the course of a canonical hearing/reading of the Muslim
scripture.
A second verb of concealing, asarra, appears in the context of the
first h arrafa verse at Q 2:77: God knows what they keep secret
(yusirrna) and what they publish. Asarra, which occurs 20 times
in the Qurn, means to conceal, suppress or keep secret.93 This verb
does not appear frequently in Sras 27, but it does occur at Q 5:52:
for that they kept secret within them. An occurrence of the verb in
ordinary usage comes in the Qurnic story of Joseph, with Joseph
himself as the object. So they hid him as merchandise; but God knew
what they were doing (Q 12:19).
A third verb of concealing, akhf, appears in Q 2:284 immediately
after a double occurrence of katama: Whether you publish what is in
your hearts or hide it (tukhfhu), God shall make reckoning with you
for it. Akhf means to hide, conceal or cover.94 One of the 17 occurrences of this form in the Qurn is in the context of the third appearance of h arrafa at Q 5:15, where the messenger is to make clear to the
People of the Book many things you have been concealing (tukhfna)
of the book. An occurrence of akhf which seems to be explicitly connected with a scripture comes at Q 6:91: They measured not God with
his true measure when they said, God has not sent down aught on any
mortal. Say, Who sent down the book that Moses brought as a light
Arabic-English Lexicon, Book I, Part 4, 1337.

93
94
56
chapter three
and a guidance to men? You put it into parchments, revealing them,

and hiding (tukhfna) much; and you were taught that you knew not,
you and your fathers.
Baddala, to substitute
The third root to appear in the canonical progression is the verb bad
dala, which means to substitute, change or alter to something else.95 A
number of the 33 Qurnic occurrences of baddala seem to indicate
the substitution or change of words, and identify this as an evil act.
The first appearance of the verb is of this kind: Then the evildoers
substituted (baddala) a saying (qawl) other than that which had been
said to them (Q 2:59). The context is a narrative about Moses and the
Children of Israel. The very same verb form and object comes again in
Q 7:162, similarly in the midst of a story about Moses and the twelve
tribes.
The object of baddala is the word of God (kalm Allh) at Q 48:15:
...desiring to change the word of God. The subject seems to be the
Bedouins, and the concern is participation in battle. In another passage the object is a recitation (qurn), and the opponents of the
messenger command him to change it. God instructs the messenger
to reply, It is not for me to alter (baddala) it (Q 10:15). Elsewhere,
objects indistinct in themselves may possibly be understood to indicate revelation. An example is Q 2:211: Whoso changes (baddala)
the blessing (nima) of God after it has come to him, God is terrible in
retribution. This clause is immediately preceded in the verse by the
command, Ask the Children of Israel how many a clear sign (ya)
we gave them.
While some of these occurrences of baddala appear to suggest a
tampering action associated with the revelation of God, a series of
verses in the Qurn declares confidently that humans cannot change
the words of God. No man can change (l mubaddila) the words
(kalimt) of God (Q 6:34).96 The same active participle of baddala is
used in Q 6:115, where the object is his words. At Q 18:27 we find the
very same phrase as in 6:115. The same object is used with the verbal
noun of baddala at Q 10:65: There is no changing (tabdl) the words
Matthias Radscheit suggests that kalimt mostly refers to former revelations.
Word of God, EQ (2006), Vol. 5, 5478.
95
96
57
of God. A related expression comes at Q 50:29, where God declares,

the word (qawl) is not changed (baddala, passive) with me.
A notable use of baddala with God as the subject is Q 16:101: And
when we exchange (baddala) a verse (ya) in the place of another
verse. Here God is the subject of a construction which in most other
Qurnic contexts seems to imply a negative action. Another interesting use of the verb is in the phrase, you shall find no changing (tabdl)
the wont (sunna) of God (Q 33:62) in relation to the slaughter of
hypocrites. An identical phrase appears to relate to divine involvement
in battle at Q 48:23. However, the sunna of God seems to indicate
something quite different at Q 35:43, where the theme is the sending
of warners and the appropriate human response: And you shall never
find any changing (tabdl) the wont of God, and you shall never find
any altering (tah wl) the wont of God. The parallel relationship with
h awwala may bring the sense of transforming or turning to the
meaning of baddala.
H arrafa, to tamper with
The fourth verb in the semantic field of tampering to make its appearance is the verb h arrafa. Though this verbespecially through its verbal noun tah rfis one of the best known Arabic words for tampering,
it in fact occurs only a few times in the Qurn. The verbal noun tah rf
does not appear at all. The four occurrences of this root appear to be
associated with a revelation from God. Its first occurrence is of this
type: ...a party of them that heard Gods word (kalm), and then
tampered with it (yuh arrifnahu) (Q 2:75).
H arrafa is generally defined as to change. However, chapters 4
and 5 below will show that early exegetes understood a range of
meanings from this verb. Edward Lane gave the sense of h arrafa as
he altered. He cited a series of uses of this verb, including causing (hearts) to turn away; turning (a knife) obliquely in nibbing; and
imitating the cutting (of a sword) with its edge.97 He further offered
that the verbal noun tah rf came to signify the perverting of language;
the altering of a word in form; the mistranscribing of a word in any
manner; or the altering of a word by substituting one letter, or more,
for another, or others.98 Interestingly, Lane points out that the active
97
98
58
chapter three
participle of h arrafa is used outside of the Qurn in an expression

for God, muh arrifu al-qulb, meaning the turner, incliner or mover
of hearts.99
The other three occurrences of h arrafa in the Qurn share the same
object and possibly the same subject. The first of these is Q 4:46: Some
of the Jews tamper with (yuh arrifna) words (kalim) from their places
(mawdi). The wording of Q 5:13 and 5:41 is very similar. The object
kalim in these verses, along with kalm in Q 2:75, might possibly
be understood to refer to earlier scriptures, as noted earlier in this
chapter. The subject of all three verses may be the Jews, or at least the
People of the Book. The context of all three seems to be a discussion
of Gods dealings with the Children of Israel. While these contextual
clues do not help to precisely define the action signified by h arrafa,
they suggest an action of tampering with revelation.
Apart from these four occurrences of h arrafa, the verbal root
appears only twice elsewhere in the Qurn, and little information
can be gained from those uses. In Q 8:16, a physical action is indicated: Whoso turns his back that day to them, unless withdrawing
(mutah arrif) to fight again (Form V). Tah arrafa has the sense of
to turn off, branch off, take a turning. The final appearance is at
Q 22:11: And among men there is such a one as serves God upon the
very edge (h arf).... The noun h arf refers to the (cutting) edge (of a
knife or sword), and also means a border, rim, or verge.
Muslim exegetes have sometimes attempted to provide a definition
for the verb h arrafa, as we shall discover in the examination of T abars
commentary below. The 13th-century scholar al-Rz discussed the
verb in his commentary Mafth al-ghayb where h arrafa first appears
at Q 2:75.100 He cited al-Qaffl to the effect that tah rf means alteration (taghyr) and substitution of one thing for another (tabdl).101 The
origin of the word is in the act of bending (inh irf) or slanting in
order to avoid something, said al-Qaffl, quoting Q 8:16 (mutah arrif)
for support. The meaning of tah rf is thus to cause something to deviate (imla) from what is true, as a writing reed is called corrupted
(muh arraf) if its point has been trimmed askew (mil).102 In relation
al-Tafsr al-Kabr, Vol. III, 1325.
101
al-Tafsr al-Kabr, Vol. III, 134.
102
al-Tafsr al-Kabr, Vol. III, 134. Cf. Gaudeul and Caspar, Textes de la tradition
musulmane, 65.
99
100
59
to the Jews, al-Rz indicated four possible types of tah rf: substitution
of one term in the Torah for another; false interpretation (the sense
al-Rz preferred); insincere adherence to Muhammads words; and
inverting the precepts of God in the Torahfor example a punishment of beating instead of stoning.103
Arthur Jeffery defined h arrafa as to change the letters, apparently
on the strength of h arrafa sharing the same root letters with h arf
(letter, pl. h urf).104 Jeffery explained, Each radical in the root of a
Semitic word is a h arf, and to make play with these radicals in a word
would be to do what is meant by h arrafa.105 Julian Obermann offered
an explanation of the entire phrase which appears at Q 4:46: Literally,
yuh arrifna al-kalima an mawdiihi can only mean that they, the
Israelites, changed the wording, of a sentence or statement, as to its
given order: they altered the words from their (rightful) places.106
Law, to twist
Another root which occurs in association with alteration of Gods revelation is the verb law. The verb first appears in Q 3:78: There is a
sect of them twist their tongues with the book, that you may suppose
it part of the book, yet it is not part of the book. The context is a discussion of a party of the People of the Book (Q 3:72f.) who speak
falsehood against God (Q 3:75; cf. 3:78). The accusation of twisting
also comes soon after accusations of confounding and concealing
(Q 3:71).
The verb law appears only five times in the Qurn. The verb means
to turn, twist, wind, or bend, something; to turn something up or
103
al-Tafsr al-Kabr, Vol. III, 1345. Cf. Di Matteo, Il Tahrf od Alterazione, 65.
Watt writes that The meanings ascribed to the word yuh arrifna in commentaries
and dictionaries are the outcome of the subsequent discussions and do not necessarily give much insight into the meaning of the passage at the time of revelation. The
Early Development, 5152. (Again, as queried in chapter 1, how feasible is it to speak
of the meaning of the Qurn apart from commentary?)
104
Ghevonds Text, 280.
105
The Qurn as Scripture, 260.
106
Obermann, Koran and Agada, 40, italics are his. Whether or not a phrase in a
text can only mean one thing seems to be open to discussion. In any case, the aim
of this study is to discover what exegetes in the earliest era of commentary understood the verbs of tampering in the Qurn to mean. The meaning given to a Qurnic
expression from a distance of over a millennium may well be different from what the
Muslims scholars of the first Islamic centuries understood.
60
chapter three
down; or to turn something away.107 At Q 3:78, the object of the verb

appears to be their tongues rather than the book. In Q 4:46, the
object is not clear and the Jews are twisting with their tongues and
traducing religion. In this clause, twisting seems to be in a parallel relationship with traducing (tan). T an, the verbal noun of taana,
means piercing, attack, accusation, defamation, and thus lends a
sense of verbal insult to law. The context of Q 4:46 also appears to be
a highly-charged polemical situation in which those who were given a
share of the book purchase error (Q 4:44f.). The accusation of twisting comes immediately after an accusation of tampering with words
from their places (Q 4:46).
The other occurrences of law seem to refer to physical actions. At
Q 3:153, the verb appears in a context of conflict: When you were
going up, not twisting about for anyone. In Q 63:5, the hypocrites
twist their heads and turn their faces away from Gods messenger. The verb seems to be used metaphorically for a moral action in
Q 4:135: If you twist (talwu) or turn away, God is aware of the things
you do.
Nasiya, to forget
The final root in the semantic field of tampering is the verb nasiya.
This verb occurs in close proximity to other roots of tampering in
Q 5:1314. The accusation is first made of the Children of Israel, they
have forgotten a portion of that they were reminded of (Q 5:13). Then
in the next verse the very same phrase is applied to the Christians.
The verb nasiya means to forget, and may also possibly take on the
morally culpable sense of to neglect.108 Most of the occurrences of
this verb in the Qurn are not related to Gods revelation. But Q 5:13
comes in the midst of the discussion of how the Children of Israel
broke their compact with God. An accusation of tampering with
words from their places comes immediately before the accusation of
forgetting, and the two appear to be in a parallel relationship. An accusation of concealing follows soon afterward (Q 5:15).

Lane recorded an occurrence of nasiyahu which he understood to mean, he
constrained himself to dismiss it from his mind. Arabic-English Lexicon, Book I, Part 8
Supplement, 3033.
107
108
61
This sense of nasiya may also be in mind in Q 2:44, where the Children of Israel are questioned, Will you bid others to piety, and forget
yourselves while you recite the book? The verb seems to have the
deliberate active sense of neglect in Q 2:238, Forget not to be bountiful one towards another. Adam also seems to be held responsible for
neglecting his covenant with God in Q 20:115, where he forgot, and
we found in him no constancy. Other uses of the verb where forgetting is clearly negative are in 39:11, where a man forgets God and calls
upon idols instead; and in Q 2:287, where if we forget is identified
with the mistake in the prayer which ends the sra.
A notable occurrence of ans (Form IV) is Q 2:106, where God
causes a verse (ya) to be forgotten. The verb comes together with We
abrogate (nasakha), and the two verb forms appear to be connected
in a parallel relationship.
The Operation of the Semantic Field
These eight Arabic roots, therefore, comprise the semantic field of tampering in the Qurn. Izutsu writes that Every word has, as it were, its
own choice of companions, so much so that the entire vocabulary of
a language forms an extremely tangled web of semantic groupings.109
The survey of verbs above has offered many examples of verbal clusters in which objects help to distinguish the meanings of verbs, and
verbs help to identify subjects. Cases of verbal definition of terms from
their contexts has been seen to be minimal. However, the verbs of this
group frequently appear with synonyms, antonyms, or other verbs set
in a parallel relationship. Indeed, in at least five cases discrete verbs of
tampering have been noted to appear together in the same verse.
A lack of awareness of this wider semantic grouping of tampering
leads to a limited and nave view of the Qurnic material related to
the verbs h arrafa and baddala, and thus may cause a scholar to miss
a wealth of material in the commentaries relevant to the tampering
motif. With this in mind, the descriptions and analyses in chapters
4 and 5 below will include the exegesis of verses containing all eight
verbs surveyed above. In addition to verses containing these eight verbs,
the net will be flung out still further to include the exegesis of verses
Ethico-Religious Concepts, 40.
109
62
chapter three
containing idiomatic expressions. Though some of these additional

verses may be neither included in the semantic field nor indicated
by scholars of polemic, they contain expressions which can trigger
thoughts of tampering in the minds of exegetes.
The chart below sets out the occurrences of the verbs in the semantic
field of tampering in Sras 27 of the Qurn. Along with these verbs,
the occurrences of three idiomatic expressions are noted: sell for a
small price, write the book with hands, and throw behind backs.
Also provided in the chart are the occurrences of specific names of
earlier scriptures, and the expression musaddiq (confirming). The
eight verbs are given in italics. Names of earlier scriptures and claims
of confirmation appear in capital letters. Included with the verbs are
the Qurnic subjects and objects, if given.
The chart offers a preview of how the verbs and expressions of the
semantic field might be expected to tangle in a reading of Sras 27
of the Qurn. But a full appreciation of their interactions can only
come after a study of the exegesis of these many verses in the commentaries, in which Muqtil and T abar explain the meanings of the
tampering verbs through definition, using yet other verbs, andmost
vividlythrough the use of narrative. The 25 verses110 which are the
focus of the commentary material described and analysed in detail in
chapters 47 below are indicated by the numbers in parentheses after
the verse references.
110
One verse which is indicated once in the scholarly lists but not included in the
chart below is Q 5:77: Say, People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your
religion, other than the truth, and follow not the caprices of a people who went astray
before, and led astray many, and now again have gone astray from the right way.
Because this verse contains neither a reference to an earlier scripture or its confirmation, nor a verb or expression of tampering, it is left aside.
63
VERSE
TERM
SUBJECT
OBJECT
Q 2:41 (1)
CONFIRMING
sell for small price
labasa
katama
baddala
h arrafa
asarra
write with hands
CONFIRMING
CONFIRMING
CONFIRMING
CONFIRMING
throw behind backs
ans
katama
katama
katama
katama
baddala
CONFIRMING
TORAH & GOSPEL
TORAH & GOSPEL
CONFIRMING
TORAH
TORAH & GOSPEL
labasa
katama
law
CONFIRMING
TORAH (x2)
katama
throw behind backs
katama
h arrafa
law
CONFIRMING
PSALMS
what I revealed
Children of Israel (C of I)
C of I
C of I
evildoers of C of I
hearers of Gods word
what is with you

signs of God
truth with vanity
truth
a saying
the word of God
2:42 (2)
2:59 (3)
2:75 (4)
2:77 (5)
2:79 (6)
2:89
2:91
2:97
2:101 (7)
2:106
2:140 (8)
2:146 (9)
2:159 (10)
2:174 (11)
2:211 (12)
3:3
3:48
3:50
3:65
3:71 (13)
3:77
3:78 (14)
3:81
3:91
3:187 (15)
3:199
4:37 (16)
4:46 (17)
4:47
4:163
the book (kitb)

what they have written
a book from God
what is with them
truth
what is with them
what went before
a messenger from God
what is with them
those given the book
the book of God
God
a verse
People of the Book (P of B) testimony from God
those given the book
truth
evidence and guidance
what God sent down
C of I
God/the book
the blessings of God

what went before it
Jesus
Torah
P of B
P of B
truth with vanity

truth
covenant of God
tongues with the book
what is with you
a part of P of B
a messenger
those given book
those given book
those given book
P of B
some of the Jews
some of the Jews
what we have sent down
the book
signs of God
bounties God gave
words from places
tongues
what is with you
64
chapter three
(cont.)
VERSE
TERM
SUBJECT
OBJECT
Q 5:13 (18) h arrafa

nasiya
5:14 (19)
nasiya
5:15 (20)
akhf
5:41 (21)
h arrafa
5:43
TORAH
5:44 (22)
TORAH
5:46
CONFIRMING (x2)
TORAH (x2)
GOSPEL
5:47
GOSPEL
5:48 (23)
CONFIRMING
5:66
TORAH & GOSPEL
5:68
TORAH & GOSPEL
5:110
TORAH & GOSPEL
6:91 (24)
akhf
6:92
CONFIRMING
7:157
TORAH & GOSPEL
7:162 (25) baddala
C of I
C of I
Christians
P of B
Jews
words from places

what reminded of
what reminded of
much of the book
words from places
Jews
God, Jesus
signs of God
Torah
We/the book in truth
what came before it
a book we sent down
much
what came before it
evildoers of C of I
a saying
65
Conclusions
1. Expressions of tampering, specific references to earlier scriptures,
and language of confirmation all appear to occur in the same sras
of the Qurn. In Sras 27, passages populated with verbs and terms
which suggest tampering appear to alternate regularly with contexts
thick with occurrences of the words musaddiq, Tawrt and Injl. It was
noted in chapter two that the 26 verses connected with the accusation
of falsification by scholars of polemic all occur in Sras 27. After an
investigation of the semantic field of tampering, it may also be noted
that the main verbs and expressions of tampering occur largely in these
same sras. Where these verbs and expressions occur beyond Sra 7,
they have not generally triggered thoughts of tampering with the earlier scriptures in the minds of Muslim exegetes and polemicists.
The Qurnic patterns of occurrence of specific names for the earlier scriptures, and of the term musaddiq, are also striking. Torah and
Gospel appear frequently in Sras 3 and 5, but rarely beyond Sra 7.
Similarly, the language of confirmation is strong in Sras 26, but sparse
elsewhere.
2. The subjects and objects of verbs and expressions of tampering
are generally vague and ambiguous. They may be suggestive, or allusive, as influenced by reader or context, but they are seldom specific.
The objects of tampering verbs are most often indistinct expressions
like truth, words, signs or testimony. The closest which a verse
containing the alteration verbs h arrafa or baddala comes to suggesting one of the earlier revelations is the word of God at Q 2:75. An
actual name of one of the earlier scriptures never appears as the object
of a verb of tampering. Furthermore, neither the word kitb nor any
other term for a written document appears as the object of an alteration verb.
Verbs of concealing, however, may indicate a writing as object. In
Q 2:174 the object of katama is what God sent down of the kitb;
and in Q 5:15 the object of akhf is much of the kitb. The term
kitb also appears in two other katama verses, though not as object
(Q 2:146 and 2:159); and the expression the book which Moses
brought appears near akhf in Q 6:91.
Also noteworthy is the occurrence of kitb in two verses frequently
indicated by scholars of polemic, Q 2:79 and 3:78. At Q 2:79 the action
concerns writing the book with hands and selling what those hands
66
chapter three
have written. At Q 3:78 the action in focus is twisting tongues with

the book.
3. These observations on the occurrences of verbs, terms and expressions in Sras 27 set up a series of expectations for the exegesis of
the tampering verses in the commentaries of Muqtil and T abar.
One possible expectation is that exegetes who want to demonstrate
coherence of meanings within Muslim scripture will need to consider
how they can explain the verses of tampering in such a way that their
explanations harmonize with the Qurnic characterizations of the earlier scriptures. If a contradiction of meaning exists among tampering
verses, positive characterizations of earlier scriptures, and claims of a
relationship of confirmation in the Qurn, it remains unresolved in
Muslim scripture. This apparent tension heightens the anticipation of
how the exegetes will understand the interaction of these elements.
Another expectation for the exegesis of the tampering verses is that
because of the ambiguity of the subjects and objects of the tampering
verbs, Muqtil and T abar will be free to pursue a variety of exegetical
options. Perhaps they will provide the reader with a single interpretation. Perhaps they will simply map out the options and leave it to
the reader to decide. The understanding of these verses in the commentaries themselves during the formative period of tafsr will now
be explored.
chapter four
Muqtil ibn Sulaymn on the Qurnic verses

of tampering
Muslim commentators considered the words and expressions of the
Qurn and developed meanings from them in majorand sometimes
massiveworks of exegesis. This chapter and the following chapters
present the exegesis of the Qurnic verses of tampering by Muqtil
and T abar. The methodology pursued in this presentation is literary
analysis, involving close observation and careful description of the
texts themselves.
These two chapters describe what the two exegetes offer in their
explanations of some 25 verses which have been associated with the
Islamic doctrine of the corruption of the earlier scriptures. The material in the commentaries which clearly relates to the tampering theme
is examined in greatest detail. In many cases the original Arabic
words are given so that the nuances of the exegetes development of
the tampering motif can be subsequently pursued. In the descriptions
of Muqtils exegesis of the tampering verses, some straightforward
observations are offered about the context of the verse in the Qurn. If
the individual verse is part of a so-called homily of rebuke,1 then the
larger scriptural text unit promises to illuminate the meaning of the
verse itself. Following this up, descriptions of commentary passages in
chapters 4 and 5 frequently include observations about the contexts of
the passages in the commentaries. These are given in the understanding that what the exegete writes immediately before and after exerts an
influence on his interpretation of the tampering verse in question.
Each chapter begins with an introduction to the method by
which the exegete explains the text of the Qurn. These introductions integrate personal research with scholarly perspectives. Footnotes throughout the chapters provide relevant information given
neither in the scriptural locution nor the commentary passage at
A term used by Julian Obermann in Koran and Agada, 23.
68
chapter four
hand. This includes information from other parts of the Qurn or

the commentary; from the early Muslim commentaries of al-Farr
(d. 207/822) and Abd al-Razzq (d. 211/827); from other genres
which include similar narrative material such as Sra, H adth or Asbb
al-nuzl; and from scholarly studies on the Qurn or its exegesis. The
first part of this chapter offers thick description of Muqtils explanations in order to facilitate analysis later in the chapter. In chapter 6
the narrative elements in the descriptions will be further scrutinized
for their relationship to larger narrative structures.
Muqtils Style of Exegesis
Kees Versteegh describes Muqtils commentary as by far the most
independent and interesting of the early commentaries.2 The Tafsr
Muqtil ibn Sulaymn presents the complete text of the Qurn in its
canonical arrangement, broken into fragments of verses and interspersed with commentary. Pieces of scriptural text relate to explanation through a series of connectives or frequently through absence
of a connective. The connective yan appears most often; yaql also
appears, as well as (less frequently) ay. Muqtil provides glosses for a
great number of Qurnic words. Some words he consistently glosses
in the same way, such as saddaqa for mana.3 He will sometimes also
give a second gloss for his own gloss. The glosses provide lexical explanations for words which the exegete evidently either does not like or
thinks the reader will not understand.4
Occurrences of the name of Muhammad, nab or rasl are followed
in the commentary by the phrase God bless him and grant him salvation. The expression upon whom be peace is generally attached
to the names of lesser prophets. After the name God, or references to
2
Versteegh, Arabic Grammar, 130. Regula Forster remarks that the fluency of
Muqtils commentary comes from the fact that he did not yet need to discuss alternative interpretations, and thus could simply give his own explanations. Methoden
arabischer Qurnexegese, 397.
3
John Wansbrough gives some examples of these minimal units of explication in
Quranic Studies, 129; and Versteegh provides a fuller list in Grammar and Exegesis,
211212.
4
Versteegh suggests that Muqtil corrects the scriptural text freely, evidently
replacing expressions with his own without any qualms. Grammar and Exegesis,
214.
muqtil on the qurnic verses of tampering
69
the divinity, one usually finds subh nuhu (praise him), azza wa jalla
(powerful and exalted) or tala (the sublime).
A striking feature of the commentary is the frequency with which
Muqtil provides proper names for the unidentified pronouns of scripture, as well as for such generic terms as believers. In his shorter
explanations, he gives paraphrases for scriptural clauses and offers
extra information where the reader may be curious to know missing
details. A large proportion of his longer explanations is narrative material. The formula wa dhlika an/anna usually introduces a narrative
which is offered as the occasion of the verses recitation. Muqtil often
signals a return to the canonical text with fa-qla subh nahu. Another
expression, nazalat f, commonly indicates the person(s) about whom
the exegete believes God revealed the verse.
Muqtils commentary is missing a number of elements which are
familiar from commentaries of later periods. When he wants to explain
the meanings of scriptural words, he does not refer to the use of these
words in pre-Islamic poetry or h adth. Rather, he limits his comparative material to scriptural shawhid, introducing cross-references by
the expressions nazruha (comparable to that), mithla qawlihi tal
(resembling Gods saying) and ka-m qla (like what he said). A
fine example of reference to other parts of the Qurn comes in the
extended explanatory section following Q 2:15, where quotations
from Q 3:17 are used to support not only Muqtils interpretation of
Q 2:15, but also the narratives and identifications which he himself
has supplied. Muqtil sometimes takes time to gloss or explain his
cross references as well.
Two other elements virtually missing from the commentary are
variae lectiones and alternative glosses. Muqtil does not explain grammatical or stylistic phenomena. He does not provide isnds,5 a lack for
which he was greatly criticized by later scholars. He was apparently
not interested in doctrines such as ijz al-Qurn,6 or the claim that
there are no foreign words in the Qurn. Claude Gilliot demonstrated
that Muqtils remarks on a number of Hebrew figures represent a
5
A couple of these appear at Q 2:32 and 4:48, though they seem out of place and
their function is not clear. For discussion of isnds in the published commentary, see
Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft, Vol. 2, 522523; Gilliot, Muqatil, grand exegete, 41f.;
and Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 143, cf. 178183.
6
One case in point is his exegesis of Q 2:2324, his first good opportunity to present the doctrine. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 9394.
70
chapter four
period prior to the development of the doctrine of the sinlessness of

prophets.7 The exegetes discussion of the thoughts of Joseph at Q
12:24, the behavior of David with Bathsheba, and the story of Solomon
and the statue, for example, show a freedom of interpretation which
was not open to Muslim scholars of a later period.8 Muqtil seems to
take anthropomorphic and deterministic passages at face value,9 again
a tendency for which he was taken to task by others. Gilliot remarks,
The criticism leveled at Muqtil actually betrays a discernible historical trend of backward projection, whereby ancient scholars come to
be judged according to standards which only find widespread acceptance long after the scholar in question has died.10 On the other hand,
Muqtils comments about the abrogation of verses are familiar from
later standard commentaries.11
The style of the commentary is what Wansbrough described as
unhurried, almost chatty.12 Indeed, the reader detects no anxiety
about exegetical problems. Versteegh suggests that Muqtil takes it
for granted that the text [of the Qurn] with a few glosses and with a
lot of historical explanations is perfectly clear to the believers.13
Muqtil, grand exgte, 70, 84.
Gilliot, Muqtil, grand exgte, 7072. Not only did Muqtil openly discuss the
stories of these earlier figures, but he also commented freely on well-known stories
from the life of the prophet of Islam (at Q 33:3638, 33:5052, and 53:24). Gilliot,
Muqtil, grand exgte, 7278. The exegete even went so far as to compare the circumstances of David and Bathsheba with those of Muhammad and Zaynab. Gilliot,
Muqtil, grand exgte, 7475. This raises the question as to whether the objection
to Muqtil and his commentary among medieval Muslim scholars was actually due to
anthropomorphism and lack of isnd. In a personal interview in Nijmegen on February 6, 2003, Dr. Kees Versteegh suggested that Muqtils discussions of sexual behaviour have posed a problem for more recent Islamic authorities in Cairo.
9
Versteegh, Grammar and Exegesis, 215. Versteegh writes that there is no trace
of Muqtil either emphasizing or de-emphasizing scriptural passages touching on
these themes. Wesley Williams suggests that Muqtils anthropomorphism was not
significantly different from that of Ibn H anbal, who appreciated Muqtils knowledge of the Qurn. Aspects of the Creed of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal: A study of
anthropomorphism in early Islamic discourse, International Journal of Middle East
Studies 34 (2002), 454. Further on Muqtils anthropomorphism, see Nwyia, Exgse
coranique et langage mystique, 28; Gilliot, Muqtil, grand exgte, 83; and Binyamin
Abrahamov, Anthropomorphism and Interpretation of the Qurn in the Theology of
al-Qsim Ibn Ibrhm: Kitb al-Mustarshid (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), 45.
10
Exegesis of the Qurn: Classical and Medieval, 106107.
11
Versteegh, Grammar and Exegesis, 214. A good example in the passages of this
study comes at the end of Q 5:13. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 462.
12
13
Versteegh, Grammar and Exegesis, 214. Actually, narrative explanations
would be a better description of what Muqtil offers than historical explanations.
7
8
71
The Tafsr Muqtil ibn Sulaymn is a commentary which tells the

text of the Qurn as one continuous story. The reader senses an intention on the part of the exegete to provide a narrative framework for
scripture passages which contain no explanatory context. The importance of the narratio in Muqtils commentary has been noted by
Wansbrough.14 Narrative takes the central place as the generator of
meaning, and indeed seems to dominate the scriptural text itself.15 The
effect of this narrative style of exegesis is to give continuity and wholeness to the text of the Qurn. Muqtil attempts this through a number
of indentifiable devices.
First of all, the use of connectivesas well as the absence of connectivesbetween scriptural text and commentary tends to smooth
out the verses which do not seem to be linked by any explicit narrative flow. Muqtil repeats scriptural units given earlier in order to
keep text and commentary moving forward together. Just prior to a
verse, he will often introduce the object which the verse is about to
describe.16 He will often anticipate scriptural material yet to come, and
sometimes will tell the story in advance of the scriptural reference (as
if he is impatient to narrate?).17 In order to fill in narrative details of
the version of a prophetic story at hand, he freely ransacks versions of
the story in other parts of the Qurn by means of cross-reference. All
of these devices have the effect of binding the present verse or narrative to what comes before and after in the text.
Muqtils style of writing also has the texture of story-telling. He
often seems to paraphrase scriptural clauses in the mood of in other
words.... His double-glossing and supercommentary18 bring to
mind a conversation between exegete and audience. His identification
Quranic Studies, 140, 127.

Rippin, Tafsr, Encyclopedia of Religion, 238.
16
termed by Wansbrough stage directions, Quranic Studies, 124. An early example is when Muqtil introduces Q 2:4 with, Then he mentioned the believers of the
people of the Torah, Abd Allh ibn Salm and his companions.... Tafsr Muqtil,
Vol. I, 81.
17
A striking example of Muqtil telling the story before the verses is at Q 2:5155.
He first provides long narratives about the Children of Israel taking the calf and
about the 70 leaders demanding to see God, and then gives the entire scriptural passage Q 2:5456 all at once. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 104108.
18
14
15
72
chapter four
of anonymous references,19 known as tayn al-mubham,20 creates

familiarity with the text and enhances the quality of the narrative.21
He sets up a system of representative characters who appear repeatedly throughout the narrative to bring the vague scriptural references
back to the story. He elaborates as fully as possible the Qurns own
narrative indications, and at times seems to provide extra information
simply to entertain the curious reader.22
In the following description of Muqtils exegesis, reference is also
made to the Sra of Ibn Ishq (d. 150/767) for clarifications on wordings. Ibn Ishq wrote at about the same time as Muqtil, and his Sra
shows many similarities to Muqtils Tafsr.23 While Muqtil presents
the verses of the Qurn in canonical sequence and provides a narrative structure so that the verses flow smoothly like a story, Ibn Ishq
tells a story in chronological sequence and provides verses so that the
19
As Versteegh expresses it, Nothing and nobody is left anonymous. Grammar
and exegesis, 214. Versteegh gives the absurd example of Muqtils naming the ant
who talked to Sulaymn al-Jarm (at Q 27:18, Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. III, 299). Roberto
Tottoli gives another good example of this kind of identification from Muqtils exegesis of Q 37:1027 (Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. III, 615). Not only does Muqtil confidently
identify Abrahams son of intended sacrifice to be Isaac, but he also informs the reader
that the ram sacrificed in Isaacs place was named Raznone of the billy-goats that
had been grazing in paradise for 40 years prior to the sacrifice! Biblical Prophets in
the Qurn and Muslim Literature (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2002), 99.
20
Literally, the identification of what God deliberately left unidentified. Burton,
Law and exegesis, 270.
21
In the Muslim haggadah the exegetical device known as tayn al-mubham
(identification of the vague and ambiguous) served to establish a connection between
scriptural phraseology and external referent, in the interest of narrative continuity.
Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu, 7.
22
Other recent translations from and descriptions of Muqtils commentary include
Regula Forster, Methoden mittelalterlicher arabischer Qurnexegese, 1119; Leigh N.B.
Chipman, Adam and the Angels: An examination of Mythic Elements in Islamic
Sources, Arabica XLIX (2002), 434, 435, 448 (on Q 2:30 & 33); and Andrew Rippins
translations of Muqtil on Sra 1 in Windows on the House of Islam, John Renard, ed.
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 2931; and Sra 98 in Classical Islam:
A sourcebook of religious literature, ed. and trans., Norman Calder, Jawid Mojaddedi
and Andrew Rippin (London: Routledge, 2003), 105107. Nicolai Sinai also provides
both numerous translations and important description of Muqtils exegetical method
in Fortschreibung und Auslegung, chapters 812.
23
Wansbrough went so far as to write, the structural similarity between the works
of Ibn Ishq and Muqtil seems to me almost beyond dispute, and if the terms sra and
tafsr later became designations of distinct literary genres, their basic identity for the
earlier period may, I think, be conceded. Quranic Studies, 127. Cf. Wim Raven, Sra
and the Qurn, EQ (2006), Vol. 5, 36. Their similarity in relation to the tampering
theme will be explored in chapter 7.
73
story reads like salvation history. Because of these similarities, a comparison of their wordings for the purposes of description and analysis
promises to provide added perspective.24
Muqtils Commentary on Verses Containing Verbs of Alteration
As noted in chapter two, scholarly lists of Qurnic verses associated
with the Islamic doctrine of the corruption of earlier scriptures most
frequently indicate the four verses containing the verb h arrafa. For
some, there is an even more compelling basis for their importance.
Abdullah Saeed writes, Of the terms related to distortion and corruption of the text used in the Qurn, the popular Muslim view takes
the derivatives of the term tah rf as the basis of its insistence on the
deliberate falsification of Tawrt and Injl by Jews and Christians,
respectively.25 For this reason, the h arrafa verses are examined in the
greatest detail below. Three verses containing a second verb of alteration, baddala, are also examined. Other Arabic verbs of change, such
as ghayyara and h awwala, do not appear in the Qurn in contexts
which have been understood to suggest tampering with the earlier
scriptures.
Q 2:58, 59
And when we said, Enter this township, and eat easefully of it wherever
you will, and enter in at the gate, prostrating, and say, h itta tun; We will
forgive you your transgressions, and increase the good-doers. Then the
evildoers substituted (baddala) a saying other than that which had been
said to them; so we sent down upon the evildoers wrath out of heaven
for their ungodliness.26
The first verse containing a verb of alteration to appear in the canonical progression of the Qurn is Q 2:59. This verse comes in the middle
of a long section of scriptural narrative about the Children of Israel
(Q 2:4974). The verb of alteration in Q 2:59 is baddala, described in
24
The edition of Ibn Ishq referenced here is Srat al-Nab, Muhammad Muhy
al-Dn Abd al-Hamd, ed. (Cairo: Maktaba Muhammad Al Sabh wa Awld, 1963),
four volumes.
25
The Charge of Distortion, 420.
26
English translations of the featured Qurnic verses are indebted to Arberry, and
occasionally to Pickthall. However, translations sometimes reflect literal renderings of
the Arabic text or the evident understandings of the exegete.
74
chapter four
chapter 3. Muqtil explains this verse by telling a story about Ban

Isrl from the distant past, when that community was led by Yshua
ibn Nn.27 He tells the story, in fact, before giving the scriptural words
of Q 2:59. The action of alteration which Muqtil understands here is a
verbal substitution or replacement of one expression with another.
When Ban Isrl were about to enter through the gate of a town
called ly (Jerusalem was known as Aelia Capitolina by the
Romans), recounts Muqtil, God commanded them to say the expression h itta tun at the moment of entering. In the event, the gooddoers voiced the expression which they had been commanded to say.
Others, however, said hat saqamth, which Muqtil interprets to
mean red wheat (h inta hamr).28 The exegete also explains the manner in which this was said: They said that mocking (istihz) and altering (tabdl) what they had been commanded.29
Along with the verbal alteration of an expression came a substitution of posture as well. God had commanded Ban Isrl to enter the
town prostrate, which Muqtil pictures as bending upon one side of
their faces.30 The disobedient people, however, entered the gate lying
down.
Q 2:75
Are you (pl.) then so eager that they should believe you (pl.), seeing
there is a party of them that heard the word of God, then tampered with
( yuh arrifna) it, and that after they had understood it, knowingly?
The verse with the first occurrence of h arrafa comes at the start of a
unit of verses about the responses of the People of the Book. Preceding
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 109110.

Uri Rubin writes on Muqtils phrase that sumqt means red in Aramaic.
Between Bible and Qurn: The Children of Israel and the Islamic Self-Image (Princeton, N.J.: The Darwin Press, 1999), 8586. Scholars have tried to understand the
scriptural expression h itta and to explain what Muslim exegetes have identified as
the substituted expression. Goldziher suggested that h itta may be derived from the
Hebrew h atanu, we have sinned. Adang, Muslim Writers, 2278. Wansbrough, following the lead of Hirschfeld and Speyer, noted the suggestion of the alteration of
chataah (sin) into chatah (wheat). Quranic Studies, 189. Other interesting discussions
on h itta include: James A. Bellamy, Some Proposed Emendations to the Text of the
Koran, Journal of the American Oriental Society 13 (1993), 5667; and Bell, Muhammads Knowledge, 11.
29
30
27
28
75
Q 2:75 is a long section of narrative about Moses and the Children of

Israel which begins at Q 2:49. The passage Q 2:7579 contains another
tampering verb, asarra at Q 2:77, plus an important expression of tampering, write the book with hands, at Q 2:79. Muqtils interpretation of both of these verses will be given in separate sections below.
Muqtils exegesis of Q 2:7531 centers on an extended narrative about
Moses and seventy leaders whom he had appointed. He offers the
story after giving in segments the first part of the verse: Are you then
so eager that they should believe you seeing there is a party of them
that heard the word of God.... The exegete then passes from scriptural text to narrative through the expression wa dhlika anna. This
phrase functions roughly in the same way as the English introductory
phrase, This is about how....32 In Muqtils story, the seventy leaders
(al-sabn) had demanded from Moses that he show them God publicly.33 But instead of revealing himself to the seventy, God had killed
them as a punishment for their request. Now God revives the seventy,34
and this time they say, We know now that you do not see your Lord,
but rather you hear his voice. So let us hear his voice.35 Moses is skeptical about the request,36 but he goes ahead and prays, Oh Lord, truly
these your servants Ban Isrl want to hear your word (kalm). God
responds by giving a list of requirements for anyone who wanted to
hear his word. The requirements are to isolate oneself from women for
three days, to wash oneself thoroughly on the third day, to then clothe
oneself with new clothes, and finally to approach the mountain. Then
I will make them hear my word (kalm),37 promises God.

Other possible renderings are this happened because..., or for the matter
was.
33
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 116. Mention of the 70 whom Moses chose comes in the
Qurn at Q 7:155.
34
Elements of the narrative to this point are given within the Qurn itself. Prior
to Q 2:75, the Children of Israel tell Moses, we will not believe thee till we see God
openly; and the thunderbolt took you while you were beholding. Then we raised you
up after you were dead, that haply you should be thankful (Q 2:55). Also at Q 4:153,
The People of the Book will ask thee to bring down upon them a Book from heaven;
and they asked Moses for greater than that, for they said, Show us God openly. And
the thunderbolt took them for their evildoing. The phrase they said, Show us God
openly, is identical in Muqtils narrative here and at Q 4:153.
35
36
He said, a m hdha fa-as, Is this possible? Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 116.
37
31
32
76
chapter four
The seventy men comply with Gods requirements, then proceed

with Moses to the mountain. Moses tells the men that they will see
a cloud cover the mountain, and that they will see a fire within the
cloud. They will also hear a voice. So prostrate yourselves before your
Lord, Moses instructs the seventy, and see what he will command
you, then do it. The seventy reply that they will do so. Moses then
climbs the mountain and is hidden from the men by a cloud. They see
a light in the cloud and hear a voice coming out of the cloud like the
sound of a trumpet. They lie down prostrate. God says, I am your
Lord, there is no god except me, the living, the eternalI who brought
you out of the land of Egypt by an exalted hand and powerful arm. Do
not worship a god other than me, do not associate anything with me,
and do not make an image of me. You will not see me, but you will
hear my word (kalm).38
However, as soon as the seventy hear the word (kalm) of God,
writes Muqtil, they all fall unconscious from terror. And when they
regain consciousness, they find themselves lying prostrate. So they say
to Moses, We were not able to hear the word (kalm) of our Lord.
You stand between us and our Lord so that he will speak with you,
and then you tell us. Moses prays once more, telling God that Ban
Isrl were not able to hear his word (kalm), and asking him to speak
again. God agrees to Moses request and begins to give commandments to his prophet. Moses then tells the seventy, who affirm, We
have heard our Lord and we obey (ata). The commandments and
prohibitions of God come to an end, the cloud ascends and the voice
departs.39 The seventy raise their heads and return to their community.
There the people ask the seventy, What did your Lord command you
and prohibit you?40
In answer to this question of the common people, writes Muqtil,
some of the seventy report truthfully what they heard. Others from
among the seventy report what they heard, but then add an extra
clause at the end of Gods saying. If you are not able to give up what
he has forbidden you, they advise, then just do what you are able.41
Paul Nwyia provided a French translation of Muqtils story up to this point, and
suggested that it was one of the oldest Muslim descriptions of a religious experience
of God. Exgse coranique et langage mystique, 8485.
40
41
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 117. The Sra narrative related to Q 2:75 is much shorter
than that given by Muqtil, but similar in outline. The ending of that narrative, how38
39
77
The exegete now shifts from the story back to the words of the verse
through the expression fa-dhlika qawluhu (so that is [Gods] saying). He repeats the parts of the verse which he has already given,
slipping in a piece of gloss between them which hed forgotten earlier,
then immediately introduces the next part of the verse, then tampered with it, and that after they had comprehended it. Muqtil gives
no further comment on the verb h arrafa.
Q 2:211
Ask the Children of Israel how many a clear sign we gave them. Whoso
changes ( yubaddil) Gods blessing after it has come to him, God is terrible in retribution.
Muqtil recounts the many clear signs given to the Children of Israel
with a formulaic list: We parted the sea for them and destroyed their
enemies and sent down on them manna and quails and the cloud and
the rock.42 But the Jews of Madna did not respond to God in a way
which was appropriate to these many signs given to their forefathers,
writes Muqtil. They disbelieved (kafara) in the Lord of these blessings when they disbelieved in Muhammad.43 The exegete then links
this action of unbelief with the scriptural phrase whoso changes Gods
blessing after it has come to him with one of his characteristic connectors, so that is his saying, praise him.44 Muqtil thus understands
the verse to mean an action of unbelief in Muhammad by the Jews
living in Madna during the rule of the prophet of Islam in that city.
ever provides a significant variant: Then [Moses] went back with them to the Children of Israel and when he came to them a party of them changed (h arrafa) what
they had been commanded; and when Moses said to the Children of Israel, God
has ordered you to do so-and-so, they...contradicted (khilf) what God had said to
them. Ibn Ishq, Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 379. Muqtils narrative may also be profitably
compared with the story in the Torah where Yahweh asks Moses to choose 70 of
Israels elders, at Numbers 11:1630. There their function is to aid Moses in leading
the Israelites in the wilderness. Yahweh promises to come down and speak with
Moses. In the event there is also mention of the cloud. Yahweh takes the spirit that
was on Moses and puts it on the 70 elders. There is also mention of consecration in
this story, but the command is to the general population of Israelites in preparation
for eating the meat which God will provide for them.
42
43
44
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 180. fa-dhlika qawlahu subh nahu.
78
chapter four
Q 4:46
Some of the Jews tamper with ( yuh arrifna) words from their places45
saying, We have heard and we disobey and Hear, may you (sing.) not
hear and rin, twisting with their tongues and defaming religion. If
they had said, We have heard and obey and Hear and Regard us, it
would have been better for them, and more upright; but God has cursed
them for their unbelief, so they believe not except a few.
Q 4:46 is one verse in a unit of verses which begins rather abruptly at

4:44 with a question, Have you not regarded those who were given
a share of the book? Prior to Q 4:44 is an extended section of legal
material which is addressed to the believers.46 Surrounding Q 4:46
in near proximity are possible expressions of tampering (purchase
error at Q 4:44, and invent a falsehood against God at 4:50), plus a
claim of the confirmation of earlier scriptures at Q 4:47.
Muqtils exegesis of Q 4:4647 consists largely of short segments of
the verse followed by short phrases of explanation, some as brief as a
single word. There is no extended narration in the commentary on this
verse, even though the verse seems to indicate speeches from the Jews
to an unspecified listener.
The Jews tamper with the words out of their places. This same
phrase, yuh arrifna al-kalima an mawdiihi, appears at Q 5:13 and
5:41.48 In this first explanation of the phrase, Muqtil writes that the
Jews do this action through tampering (tah rf). Tah rf, verbal noun
of h arrafa, does not appear in the Qurn, but became the technical
term for tampering in Muslim tradition. The words, writes Muqtil,
mean the description (nat) of Muhammad. He further explains out
of their places as out of its declaration (bayn) in the Torah. And
he finally qualifies the action in view as twisting with their tongues,49
a phrase which appears later in the verse.
Literal translation of al-kalima an mawdiihi.

Islh makes a division between Q 4:43 and 4:44 on similar grounds. A.H. Mathias
Zahniser, Major Transitions and Thematic Borders in Two Long Sras: al-Baqara and
al-Nis, in Issa J. Boullata, ed., Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qurn
(Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2000), 28, 39.
47
48
At Q 5:41 the phrase is slightly different, with min bad in place of an. W.M.
Watt gives a list of the many ways this phrase has been rendered in English in MuslimChristian Encounters, 31.
49
45
46
79
Following this longer explanation of the h arrafa phrase, Muqtil

intersperses segments of the speech of the Jews with commentary in
the following manner:
We have heard / your saying / and we disobey (as),50 / your command so we do not obey (ta) / and Hear, / us O Muhammad, we tell
you / may you not hear51 / from you your saying O Muhammad. [It
is] unacceptable what you say / rin / meaning observe us, we hear
you.52
50
Watt suggests that the action here concerns bilingual wordplay: shman
we-sn and samin wa-asayn, meaning respectively we hear and do and we
hear and disobey. The Jews seem to say the Hebrew sn, but their actions show
that they have in fact said the Arabic asayn. The Early Development, 52. Richard
Bell agrees, and locates the Hebrew phrase in Deuteronomy 5:27. From this, Bell conjectures that Muhammad had actually heard this phrase and the shema in a synagogue
service. Muhammads Knowledge, 14. Alfred Guillaume suggests another possibility: when they said we hear and asayn they were playing on the similar-sounding
Hebrew word asnu (with sn) meaning we carry out. The Life of Muhammad: A
Translation of Ish qs Srat Rasl Allh (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1967), 264,
n. 1. See also Obermann, Koran and Agada, 41f., for discussion of the assumption
of mishearing and the possible Hebrew words involved.
51
On this phrase see Arne A. Ambros, Hre, ohne zu hren zu Koran 4, 46(48),
ZDMG 136 (1986), 1522.
52
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 376. The enigmatic scriptural word rin has drawn many
explanations from Muslim exegetes and western scholars alike. Muqtil discussed the
term at its first occurrence in the Qurn, at Q 2:104. On O believers, do not say,
Observe us, he writes, This is about how the believers said to the prophet (PBUH),
rin samaka, like their saying amongst themselves in the time of ignorance. Rin
in the speech of the Jews is a term of abuse (shatm). When the Jews heard the associators saying that, it amazed them. So they said something similar to the prophet
(PBUH). A man from the helpersSad ibn Ibdat al-Ansr by namesaid to the
Jews, a man from you said it to the prophet (PBUH), to Adar ibn Anqahu. So God,
powerful and exalted, admonished the believers, saying, O believers, do not sayto
the prophet (PBUH)rin. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 128129. Dawid Knstlinger
identified rin as the imperative of Form II ra, and compared it to the Hebrew
imperative ren of the Jewish table prayer. Jews and Christians have addressed God
in this way in prayer. But Muhammad could not allow the expressions watch us
or Our Shepherd, because in the Arab view to call God Shepherd would be blasphemy. Muhammad will have heard this prayer of the Jews and Christians, wrote
Knstlinger, and forbade its use. Rin, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies
London Institution 5 (1930): 881. Watt wrote that the Qurn seems to want to stop
the Jews from saying rin because it resembles the Hebrew root for evil (ra). He
added that this looks like a piece of Jewish mockery of Muhammad. The Early
Development, 52. Andrew Rippin, in his discussion of asbb reports on this term,
similarly suggested that the inter-lingual play is between Arabic ra and Hebrew ra.
The function of asbb al-nuzl in Qurnic exegesis, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies LI (1988), 1718. More recently, Frederick Denny wrote that
rin is an insulting corruption of an Arabic phrase, rin, meaning Please listen
to us. Corruption, 440. Further explanations can be found in Jeffery, The Qurn
as Scripture, 260, n. 4; and Obermann, Koran and Agada, 4546.
80
chapter four
Muqtils explanation of the next phrase, Twisting (layyan) with their

tongues and slandering (tanan) religion, will be explained separately
below. Here it may simply be noted that from these words he understands disrespect toward Muhammad and Islam. The exegete then
explains the speech which the Jews should have given in much the
same way in which he explained the speech they gave.53
At the end of his commentary on Q 4:46, the exegete explains that
the object of Gods curse is Jewish unbelievers: Though they know that
God is their Lord, and that he is their creator and their sustainer, they
disbelieve in Muhammad, God bless him and grant him salvation,54
and in what he brought. This was revealed about Rifa ibn Zayd
ibn al-Sib and Mlik ibn al-D ayf and Kab ibn Asad, all of them
Jews.55
Q 5:13
So for their breaking their compact we cursed them and made their
hearts hard. They are tampering with ( yuh arrifna) words from their
places; and they have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded
of; and you (sing.) will never cease to light upon some act of treachery
on their part, except a few of them. Yet pardon them, and forgive; surely
God loves the good-doers.
Q 5:13 is part of a unit of verses concerned with the People of the Book.
The first impression is that this unit begins abruptly at Q 5:12 after a
section of legal material addressed to believers. Suddenly there is a
shift from second person to third person with, God made a covenant
with the Children of Israel. This impression, however, apparently
does not occur to Muqtil, because he understands Q 5:11 to refer
to a major incident of Jewish treachery, and this story subsequently
influences his interpretation of Q 5:13.56 The following verses also contain references to two verbs in the wider semantic field of tampering
at Q 5:14 (nasiya) and 5:15 (akhf).
53
On the appearance of the phrase, We hear and we obey at Q 5:7, 24:51 and
2:285, see Julian Obermann, Koran and Agada, 3134.
54
sall llhu alayhi wa sallam. Subsequent occurrences of this expression will be
indicated by (PBUH).
55
56
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 458460. Ibn Ishq also finds Q 5:11 to relate to a story of
treachery. Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 403.
81
Muqtils exegesis of Q 5:1357 continues the progression from his

commentary on the preceding verse, 5:12. In explaining Q 5:13 itself,
the exegete provides glosses for a number of the phrases, as well as
completion of open-ended expressions. In addition to containing the
third occurrence of the verb h arrafa, Q 5:13 contains another verb
from the semantic field of tampering, nasiya, which will be dealt with
separately below. The commentary also includes an interesting example of the application of the naskh principle.
The exegete begins by identifying the curse of the verses first
phrase with transformation (maskh). He further completes the scriptural phrase and made their hearts hard, by adding, against faith in
Muhammad.
On tampering with words out of their placesthe phrase that first
appeared at Q 4:46Muqtil offers no new information about the verb
h arrafa. But he writes, as he did in his exegesis of Q 4:46, that the
words (kalim) are the description (sifa) of Muhammad. Immediately
following this he offers a longer explanation of the tampering action
he understands from the verse. On they have forgotten (nasiya) a
portion of what they were reminded of, Muqtil writes:
This is about how God, powerful and exalted, made a covenant with
Ban Isrl in the Torah that they would believe (mana) in Muhammad
(PBUH), and give credence (saddaqa) to him. He is written [in what is]
with them in the Torah.58 Then when God, powerful and exalted, sent
him, they disbelieved (kafara) in him and envied (h asada) him, and said,
This one is not from the descendents of Ishq, but rather he is from the
descendents of Isml.59
In this passage, the exegete introduces into the discussion of tampering

two significant considerations. One is the claim that the command to
respond appropriately to the prophet of Islam is part of the covenant
which the Children of Israel made with God. The second is that the
motivation of envy, awakened in the Children of Israel when they saw
that Muhammad was not of their own kind, led them to reject him.
As for the act of treachery (khina) which the Children of Israel can
be expected to do, the exegete identifies it as faithlessness (al-ghishsh)
huwa maktbun indahum f l-tawrt. The wording for the scriptural phrase,
written down with them in the Torah and Gospel (Q 7:157), is maktban indahum
f l-tawrt wa l-injl.
59
57
58
82
chapter four
towards the prophet.60 The few who do not engage in treachery,

according to Muqtil, are Abd Allh ibn Salm and his companions,61
who are believers.
For this unbelieving and treacherous behaviour of most of the Children of Israel the Qurn prescribes tolerance: Yet pardon them, and
forgive. But here Muqtil states that this divine ruling is only in force
until God brings his command in the matter of Ban Qurayza and
Nadr, and the command of God concerning them was killing, and
captivity, and expulsion.62 The second command did indeed come,
continues Muqtil, and as a result the forgiveness and pardon became
abrogated (manskh); the sword verse63 in Baraa abrogated it. And
when that command came, God Almighty killed them and captured
them and expelled them.64
Q 5:41
O messenger, let them not grieve you (sing.) that vie with one another
in unbelief, such men as say with their mouths, we believe but their
hearts believe not; and the Jews who listen to falsehood, listen to other
folk, who have not come to you (sing.), tampering with ( yuh arrifna)
words from their places, saying, If you (pl.) are given this, then take it;
if you (pl.) are not given it, beware! Whomsoever God desires to try,
you cannot avail him anything with God. Those are they whose hearts
God desired not to purify; for them is degradation in this world; and in
the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.
Muqtil gives a comparatively large amount of space to his exegesis of

Q 5:41.65 His commentary on the verse consists of 14 scriptural pieces
60
Abd al-Razzq al-Sann (d. 211/827) further qualifies the situation referred to
in you will always catch some of them committing some act of treachery (Q 5:13).
He characterizes the action as faithlessness (khiyna), lying (kadhib) and immorality
( fujr). Tafsr al-Qurn al-azz, Tafsr Abd al-Razzq (Beirut: Dr al-Marifa, 1991),
Vol. I, 183.
61
In Muslim tradition, Abd Allh ibn Salm was a convert to Islam from the Jewish community in Madna. J. Horowitz, Abd Allh ibn Salm, EI2 (1960), Vol. 1,
52. Further sources on this figure are H. Hirschfeld, Historical and Legendary Controversies between Mohammed and the Rabbis Jewish Quarterly Review x (1897),
109116; and Stephen M. Wasserstrom, Between Muslim and Jew, 175178.
62
63
Q 9:5: Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every
place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then
let them go their way; God is forgiving, merciful.
64
65
83
interspersed with his explanations. He offers gloss, attribution, identification of vague references, and completion of open-ended phrases.
Typical is the tendency to gives names to the unnamed, even the neednot-be named, such as two adulterers, assorted Jewish scholars, and
the people among whom the adulterers are eventually stoned. But
most remarkable about his exegesis of this verse is the large narrative
section he offers, three full pages in the commentary. This narrative
shows many similarities to a narrative in the Sra; therefore, that version will be referred to for comparison and clarification.
The exegete finds that the words of the first part of the verse, up
to but their hearts dont believe, were revealed in relation to Ab
Lubba. Muqtil tells how Ab Lubba indicated his throat to the
Ban Qurayza,66 meaning to say that Muhammad has come to command death among you. So do not refuse the judgment of Sad ibn
Mudh. Muqtil adds that Sad ibn Mudh was their ally.67
Muqtil does not pursue this brief story, nor does he fill in the
details.68 Instead, he passes on to another narrative with the subsequent words of scripture, and the Jews who listen to falsehood. He
identifies these as the Jews of Madna, and gives a list of particular
individuals among them: Kab ibn al-Ashraf,69 Kab ibn Asad, Ab
Lubba, Sad ibn Mlik, Ibn Sriy, Kinna ibn Ab al-H uqayq, Shas
ibn Ab al-H uqayq, Shas ibn Qays, Ab Rfi ibn H uraymila, Ysuf
66
The editor Shihta suggests, this gesture means that Muhammad will surely
give a judgment of killing and slaughter concerning you. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 474.
According to Muslim tradition, Ab Lubba was a Companion of Muhammad whom
the Ban Qurayza trusted. M.J. Kister sets this incident in the context of the traditional
account of the Massacre of the Ban Qurayza. The Massacre of the Ban Qurayza: A
re-examination of a tradition, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 8 (1986), 62.
67
68
This incident is narrated in the Sra as part of the story of the raid on the Ban
Qurayza. Srat al-Nab, Vol. III, 715729. After Muhammad has besieged the Ban
Qurayza for 25 nights, they ask Muhammad to send them Ab Lubba so that they
can consult him. The Jews ask Ab Lubba whether they should submit to the judgment of Muhammad. He says yes, and points to his throat to mean slaughter. The
Ban Qurayza then submit to the prophets judgment. The tribe of al-Aws, who were
allies of the Ban Qurayza, asks the prophet for fair treatment of their allies. The
prophet appoints Sad ibn Mudh, one of al-Aws, to pronounce the judgment upon
Ban Qurayza. The judgment of Sad ibn Mudh is that the men should be killed, the
property divided, and the women and children taken as captives. Srat al-Nab, Vol.
III, 721. Cf. M.J. Kister, The Massacre of the Ban Qurayza, 6196.
69
In Muslim tradition, Kab ibn al-Ashraf was the son of an Arab father from the
T ayyi and a mother who belonged to the Jewish clan of Ban al-Nadr. Kab is reputed
to have opposed the rule of the prophet of Islam in Madna. W. Montgomery Watt,
Kab b. al-Ashraf, EI2 (1978), Vol. 4, 315.
84
chapter four
ibn zar ibn Ab zab, Sall ibn Ab zib, Sall ibn Ab Sall, and
al-Bakhm ibn Amr.70 That they listen to other folk who have not
come to you, means these Jews of Madna are listening to the Jews
of Khaybar and are now about to pose a question to Muhammad on
their behalf.
At the phrase, tampering with the words out of their places,
Muqtil states that the words are the commandment of stoning.
This is the third and final occurrence of this particular phrase in the
Qurn, and it differs from the other two references in that here min
bad appears instead of an. Muqtil again glosses out of their places
as out of its declaration (bayn) in the Torah. The exegete offers no
further gloss or etymological information on the verb h arrafa. But he
immediately begins a long narrative with the characteristic words, wa
dhlika an. The story Muqtil offers71 goes like this:
A man named Yahdh and a woman named Busra, both Jews living in Khaybar, committed adultery (zan) while married (ah sa n).72
The other Jews of Khaybar do not want to stone the couple, because
both are from the nobility. So they decide to send the couple to
Muhammad, and let him determine their punishment. They are hoping for a more lenient sentence than stoning, thinking that in his
religion (dn) is flogging rather than stoning. But they are not quite
sure of the outcome, and voice the warning, if he commands stoning
for the two, beware of him. So the Jews of Khaybar write to the Jews
of Madna (Kab ibn al-Ashraf, Kab ibn Asad, Mlik ibn al-D ayf and
Ab Lubba), and send the letter along with a delegation, including
the guilty pair. They request the Jews of Madna to ask the prophet of
Islam what the ruling should be for adultery. If he prescribes flogging to you, accept it, they write. Muqtil explains that flogging (jald)
means beating the adulterers with a rope of palm fiber smeared with
pitch. The punishment, known as tajbya, also included blackening
their faces and mounting them on a donkey facing the donkeys tail.
The Jews of Khaybar have warned their Madnan counterparts that
if Muhammad happens to give a sentence of stoning, beware of him,
because he will steal what you possess. So Kab ibn al-Ashraf, Mlik
ibn al-D ayf, Kab ibn Asad and Ab Lubba approach the Prophet,
72
On the sense of ah sa n, see John Burton, The Meaning of Ihs n, Journal of
Semitic Studies XIX (1974), 4775; and idem., Muhsa n, EI2 (1993), Vol. 7, 4745.
70
71
85
and ask him what the punishment for adultery should be. The angel
Gabriel, writes Muqtil, comes to Muhammad at that point and tells
him, stoning. The angel further tells him to appoint Ibn Sriy as a
mediator between himself and the Jews. Muhammad then proceeds to
the Jews house of study to meet their religious leaders. He says, Oh
community of the Jews, send out to me your scholars. In response, the
religious leaders send out Abd Allh ibn Sriy, Ab Ysir ibn Akhtab
and Wahb ibn Yahdh and announce, These are our scholars. But
Muhammad prevails upon them until they disclose that Abd Allh ibn
Sriy is their greatest living Torah expert.73 Ibn Sriy, a young man,
is brought forward. Present to witness the encounter is Abd Allh ibn
Salm. Muhammad then addresses the Jewish Torah expert:
I adjure you by God, other than whom there is no god, the god of Ban
Isrl, who brought you out of Egypt, and parted the sea for you, and
drowned the people of Pharaoh, and revealed to you his book, making
clear to you what he permits and what he forbids, and sheltered you with
the cloud, and sent down manna and quails. Did you find in your book
that stoning is [the punishment for] the one who in the state of marriage
[commits adultery]?74
Ibn Sriy is stung to honesty by the prophets striking adjuration and

immediately exclaims, Oh God, yes! If it were not that I feared that
I would burn in the fire or be destroyed by the punishment, I would
certainly have concealed (katama) from you when you asked me, and
not confessed to you. Hearing this confirmation of the ruling given
to him by Gabriel, Muhammad declares, God is greater! I am the
first to revive one of the sunnas of God.75 The prophet of Islam then
pronounces the sentence for the two adulterers, and they are stoned
beside the door of his mosque among Ban Ghanm ibn Mlik ibn
al-Najjr.
In a continuation of the story, Ibn Sriy adds a further speech:
By God, O Muhammad, the Jews do indeed know that you are a true
73
Burton, Law and exegesis, 276. Literally, This is the most knowledgeable one
in the Torah who remains.
74
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 476. cf. Burton, Law and exegesis, 276.
75
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 476. an awalu man ah y sunna min sunan allh. The
phrase sunnat Allh appears eight times in the Qurn: 33:38, 33:62 (x2), 35:43 (x2),
40:85, 48:23 (x2). Our sunnah also appears once with God as speaker, at Q 17:77.
Rosalind W. Gwynne discusses these occurrences in The Neglected Sunnah: Sunnat
Allh (The Sunnah of God), American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 10 (1993),
456458.
86
chapter four
prophet, but they envy you.76 But after this confession, writes Muqtil,
Ibn Sriy somehow lost faith (kafara). And in response to this, writes
the exegete, God revealed Q 5:15: Oh People of the Book, our messenger has come to you, making clear to you much of what you were
concealing from the book.77 Muqtil exegetes this cross reference to
mean, [concealing] what is in the Torah about the command of stoning and the description (nat) of Muhammad.78
Muqtil goes on to quote a second part of Q 5:15, and effacing
much, and to gloss it as not telling it. In exegeting the second
phrase from the cross reference, Muqtil shifts into a new story of confrontation between Muhammad and the Jews.79 The key word seems
to be effacing (af). Muhammad says to the Jews, If you want, I
will tell you many things. Ibn Sriy responds, I adjure you by God
that you tell us much of what you command that you will efface. Ibn
Sriy then quizzes the prophet: Tell me about three characteristics
(khisl) which nobody knows except a prophet. Muhammad invites
Ibn Sriy to ask whatever he wants.
Ibn Sriy says, Tell me about your sleep. The prophet answers,
My eyes sleep and my heart is awake. Ibn Sriy affirms the truth of
the prophet, then says, Tell me about the likeness of the child. Where
does he resemble the father, and where the mother? The prophet
answers, Whichever of them reaches sexual release first, gives the
likeness. Ibn Sriy once more affirms the truth of the prophet, then
poses a third question: Now tell me what belongs to the man and
what belongs to the woman from the child, and from which of them is
76
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 477. The Sra version of this narrative is in many ways
similar to what is offered by Muqtil. The notable difference, which is relevant to the
development of the tampering motif, is that the Sra adds a narrative about a specific
act of kitmn. Ibn Ishq recounts, When the apostle gave judgment about them he
summoned them to the Torah. A rabbi sat there reading it having put his hand over
the verse of stoning. Abd Allh ibn Salm struck the rabbis hand, saying, This, O
prophet of God, is the verse of stoning which he refuses (ab) to read to you. The
apostle said, Woe to you Jews! What has induced you to abandon (tark) the judgment of God which you hold in your hands? Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 406. The Sra
then also includes the Jews explanation of why they abandoned the stoning penalty,
hinted at near the beginning of Muqtils narrative and also found in T abars exegesis
of Q 5:41.
77
The Sra finds rather that this was the occasion of revelation of Q 5:41. Srat
al-Nab, Vol. II, 405.
78
Muqtil does not provide this information in his exegesis of Q 5:15. Tafsr
Muqtil, Vol. I, 463.
79
87
it? The prophet answers, The skin, blood, nails and hair belong to the
woman, and the bone, nerves and veins belong to the man. A third
time Ibn Sriy affirms that this is true, then asks, Who is your wazr
from among the angels, and who brings you revelation (wah )? The
prophet answers, Gabriel. Upon affirming the truth of the prophet a
fourth time, Ibn Sriy converts to Islam (aslama).
After these two narratives, Muqtil returns to the words of scripture
and rather quickly concludes his exegesis of Q 5:41. He repeats that
the words If you are given this then accept it are spoken by the Jews
of Khaybar to the Jews of Madna, and gives the names of the four
Madnan protagonists once more. He also adds something not mentioned earlier, that if Muhammad prescribes the stoning penalty it will
mean that he is a prophet.80
Muqtil further writes that God did not desire to purify the hearts
of the Jews from unbelief when they concealed (katama) the commandment of stoning and the description of Muhammad.81 Rather,
the Jews will have to suffer degradation in this life. This refers to the
tribe of Qurayza, which were destined to suffer killing and captivity.
Similarly, the tribe of Nadr had to suffer expulsion from their homes
and possessions and gardens and emigration to the Syrian towns of
Adhrit and Arh.82
Q 7:162
Then the evildoers of them substituted (baddala) a saying other than that
which had been said to them; so we sent down upon them wrath out of
heaven for their evildoing.
The wording of this verse is very similar to Q 2:59. In the first part of
Q 7:162, the only difference to Q 2:59 is the addition of the word of
them. This verse is also preceded by a verse which mentions entering
the gate of a town and the h itta tun expression. Muqtil treats Q 7:162
only briefly.83 As at Q 2:59, he understands the verse to refer to the
verbal replacement of one expression with another, and the substitution of one posture for another.

82
83
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. II, 69.
80
81
88
chapter four
Instead of the expression which they were commanded to say, writes

Muqtil, the evildoers say seeds on a piece of hair (h ibba f shara).84
As for the posture in which they entered the gate, he describes it here
as crawling on their backside. Both of these details are considerably
different from what the exegete wrote at Q 2:59. Two other differences
of detail in this story come at Q 7:161: the town in which they are
commanded to dwell is here called bayt al-maqdis (cf. ly at Q 2:59);
and the appropriate bending posture of prostration is described by the
expression inh in (cf. mutah arrif at Q 2:58).
Muqtils Commentary on Verses Containing Verbs of Concealment
The Arabic verbs of concealment in the Qurn are katama, asarra,
and akhf. Verses containing katama are by far the most abundant.
However, in their lists of Qurnic verses associated with tampering,85
scholars of polemic indicate the verses containing the other two verbs
of concealment with the same frequency.
Q 2:42
And do not confound the truth with vanity, and do not conceal (taktum)
the truth wittingly.
In addition to a verb of concealment (katama), Q 2:42 contains a second verb of tampering (labasa), which will be treated separately below.
Muqtil understands this verse to be the words of God spoken to the
Jews.86 He interprets the phrase do not conceal the truth to mean,
do not conceal the matter (amr) of Muhammad.87 What is it that
the Jews know (antum talamna) but will not reveal? According to
Muqtil, they know that Muhammad is a prophet and that his description (nat) is in the Torah.88
Just prior to his explanation of do not conceal the truth, Muqtil
uses the verb katama to explain two other actions of Jewish response.
At Q 2:41, he understands sell not my signs for a little price to
refer to the action of Jewish leaders to conceal the information about
Rubin, Between Bible and Qurn, 86.
See chapter two, pp. 2629.
86
87
88
84
85
89
Muhammad in the Torah from the lowly people of the Jews.89 At Q

2:42, the exegete finds that the confounding action of the Jews is that
they acknowledge (aqarra) some of what they read about Muhammad
in the Torah, but conceal another part in order to speak the truth
concerning that [matter].90
Q 2:77
Do they not know that God knows what they keep hidden ( yusirrna)
and what they proclaim?
Muqtil interprets Q 2:77 in the light of a story which he tells in

explanation of the preceding verse, Q 2:76. At 2:76 he offers a short
narrative about Jewish response to Muhammad.91 In this story, a Muslim man meets some Jews who are his allies, and asks them, Do you
find Muhammad in your book? The Jews answer, Yes, the prophethood of your master is true, and we recognize (arafa) him. When
another group of Jews, headed by Kab ibn al-Ashraf, hear about this,
they take their fellow Jews aside and quiz them secretly ( f al-sirr),
Will you tell the companions of Muhammad what God has opened
to you? The exegete writes that what God has revealed to you (Q
2:76) means what is clear to you in the Torah from the matter (amr)
of Muhammad.92
In his exegesis of the phrase what they keep secret in Q 2:77,93
Muqtil merely offers the expression under the open sky ( f
al-khal)from the same verb used in Q 2:76 for go privily. Then
he quotes the Jews again from the narrative at Q 2:76 in a slightly different way. Here they affirm, We find Muhammad in our book and

91
92
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 118. Al-Farr offered a similar explanation for the phrase,
shall you tell them what God has opened to you (Q 2:76): This is from the saying
of the Jews amongst themselves, Do not tell the Muslims that you find the description (sifa) of Muhammad (PBUH) in the Torah, and you dont believe it, because
this would become for them a proof against you. Kitb man al-Qurn, Ahmad
Ysuf Najt and Muhammad Al al-Najjr, eds. (Beirut: Dr al-Sarr, n.d.), Vol. I:
50. Al-Farr understands from this verse not only that a description of the prophet
of Islam would be found in the Torah, but also that the Muslims could potentially
prove their claim of the prophethood of Muhammad from the Torah in the hands
of the Jews.
93
89
90
90
chapter four
we certainly know him.94 The exegete understands the verse to refer

to an action of Jews to withhold information about Muhammad which
is clear to them in the Torah.
Q 2:140
Who does a greater wrong than he who conceals (katama) a testimony
that has come to him from God? And God is not heedless of the things
you do.
A series of four verses in the middle of the second Sra containing the
verb katama begins with Q 2:140. In this verse, Muqtil understands
the testimony (shahda) to be the matter (amr) of Muhammad
in the Torah and the Injl.95 God had made this matter clear to the
People of the Book, but they concealed this testimony which is with
(inda) them. Muqtil then gives a cross reference to Q 3:187 to support his own explanation of making clear: And when God took a
covenant from the People of the Book, to make it clear. The wording
of Q 3:187 continues, ...and not conceal it.... The exegete repeats
that the unspecified pronoun in Q 3:187 refers to the matter of
Muhammad.
Muqtil understands this verse to refer to an action by the People
of the Book to conceal information about the prophet of Islam which
could be found in the scriptures in their possession.
Q 2:146
Those to whom we have given the book recognize it as they recognize
their sons, even though there is a party of them conceal ( yaktumna)
the truth and that wittingly.
Muqtil explains Q 2:146 by telling a story about an encounter between

the Jews and the prophet of Islam.96 He specifies Ab Ysir ibn Akhtab,
Kab ibn al-Ashraf, Kab ibn Asad, Sallm ibn Sriy, Kinna ibn Ab
al-H uqayq, Wahb ibn Yahdh and Ab Nfi as participants in this
encounter.97 The Jews ask Muhammad, Why do you circumambulate the kaba when it is merely erected stones? In reply, Muhammad

96
97
94
95
91
asserts, You know that the circumambulation of the bayt (house)

is true because [the house] is the qibla which is written (maktb) in
the Torah and Injl, but you conceal and deny (jah ada) the truth that
is in the book of God.98
One of the Jews, [Sallm] Ibn Sriy, protests that this is not so:
We have concealed nothing of what is in our book. Muqtil explains
that this was the occasion for the sending down of Those to whom we
have given the book recognize it. The book in question is the Torah,
he writes, and the object of Jewish knowledge is that the bayt al-h arm
is the qibla. The truth (h aqq) which the Jews are concealing is therefore the information about the kaba in the Torah.99 Muqtil understands this verse to mean an action by the Jews to conceal and deny
information which is recorded in the earlier scriptures.
Q 2:159
Those who conceal ( yaktumna) the clear signs and the guidance that
we have sent down, after we have shown them clearly in the bookthey
shall be cursed by God and the cursers.
In his exegesis of Q 2:159, Muqtil offers another short narrative.100

Kab ibn al-Ashraf and Ibn Sriy are again the Jews specified here.
Mudh ibn Jabal, Sad ibn Mudh and H ritha ibn Zayd ask the Jews
about the matter (amr) of Muhammad, about stoning, and about other
things. But the Jews conceal these things. Muqtil interprets the clear
signs (bayyint) as the information about stoning and the permitted
and forbidden which God made clear in the Torah. The guidance
(hudan) in turn, means the matter (amr) of Muhammad in the Torah.
In order to further explain this verse, Muqtil references Q 29:49, And
none denies our signs but the unbelievers.101 In this cross-reference,

100
101
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 153. The context of Muqtils cross-reference in the
Qurn is relevant for this study. At Q 29:46 are the commands to not argue with the
People of the Book, and to say to them, we believe in what was sent down to us and
what was sent down to you. Those given the kitb earlier will believe in the present
kitb, according to Q 29:47. And at 29:49, the clear signs are in the hearts of those
who have been given knowledge. On those verses, Muqtil identifies the two books
as the Torah and the Qurn, respectively; writes that the People of the Book who
respond well to the Qurn are Abd Allh ibn Salm and his companions; adds that
these same are those given knowledge in the Torah; and understands the signs to
98
99
92
chapter four
writes the exegete, the signs (yt) refer to Muhammad, and the one
who denies (jah ada) is the one who denies (kadhdhaba) the Torah. It
is the Jews who are guilty of this, and thus shall be cursed.
Muqtil understands this verse to mean the action of the Jews to
conceal and deny information in the Torah about Muhammad and
several legal matters.
Q 2:174
Those who conceal ( yaktumna) what of the book God has sent down
on them, and sell it for a little pricethey shall eat nothing but the fire
in their bellies; God shall not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection
neither purify them; there awaits them a painful chastisement.
In addition to a verb of concealment, katama, Q 2:174 contains the

expression selling for a little price, which will be dealt with separately below. Muqtil once more understands this verse to refer to
Kab ibn al-Ashraf and Ibn Sriy as representatives of the Jewish
leaders.102 The kitb with which they were tampering is the Torah.
The information in that book which they concealed was the matter
(amr) of Muhammad. The parallel relationship of selling for a little
price to katama also lends meaning to the concealment verb for the
exegete. Muqtil writes that the Jewish leaders chose to disbelieve in
Muhammad.103 This suggests that the concealment of information in
scripture is similarly a deliberate act. Muqtil understands this verse
to mean an action by particular Jewish leaders in Madna to conceal
information in the Torah about the prophet of Islam.
Q 3:71
People of the Book! Why do you confound the truth with vanity, and
conceal (taktumna) the truth, while you have knowledge?
This verse appears near the beginning of an extended passage in the

Qurn which Muqtil understands to be rich in tampering references.
be the sending out (bath) of Muhammad in the Torah. He is recorded (maktb) in

the Torah, concludes Muqtil. Then they concealed (katama) his matter (amr) and
rejected (jah ada). Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. III, 3856. Similar interpretations, becoming
increasingly familiar from Sras 27, would appear to be myriad in the balance of
Muqtils commentary.
102
103
93
The wording of Q 3:71 after People of the Book is almost identical

to the wording of Q 2:42. Muqtil deals with Q 3:71 only very briefly.104
Its meaning, he writes, is that the Jews acknowledged (aqarra) part
of the matter (amr) of Muhammad, but concealed another part. He
thus identifies acknowledging as the opposite action to concealing.
The truth which the Jews know, according to the exegete, is that
Muhammad is a prophet and an apostle.
The context of the passage in Muqtils commentary appears to
qualify the tampering action which he pictures at Q 3:71. At 3:70,
he understands that the People of the Book bear witness that
Muhammad is the apostle of God and his description (nat) is with
you (maakum) in the Torah.105 In explanation of Q 3:7273, he tells
a story about Kab ibn al-Ashraf and Mlik ibn al-D ayf confusing the
lowly people of the Jews. At the beginning of the day they say that
the description of Muhammad is in the Torah, but at the end of the
day they say they were mistaken. We looked in the Torah, and all of
a sudden ( fa-idh) the description which is in the Torah is not the
description of Muhammad.106 The two Jewish leaders further instruct
the other Jews not to tell others about the matter of Muhammad, lest
the others argue with them. Muqtil suggests here that the motivations
of the Jewish leaders are envy towards Muhammad and a desire to
maintain their religious superiority.107
With this context in mind, Muqtil understands Q 3:71 to mean an
action by the Jews of Madna to conceal information about Muhammad
in the Torah. According to Muqtil, the Jews refuse to acknowledge
that information openly in an effort to assert their special standing
with God.
Q 3:187
And when God took compact with those who had been given the book:
You shall make it clear unto the people, and not conceal (taktumna)
it. But they threw it behind their backs, and sold it for a small price
how evil was that their selling!

106
107
104
105
94
chapter four
Those who had been given the book are the Jews, according to
Muqtil, and the book in question is the Torah.108 God had made a covenant with the Jews to make clear the matter (amr) of Muhammad
in the Torah. Instead, the Jews concealed both the information about
Muhammad and the covenant stipulation that you follow (tabia)
him. Muqtils explanations of the expressions throw behind backs
and sell for a small price will be examined separately below. Here
it can simply be noted that these expressions too are associated with
concealing (kitmn) the matter of Muhammad.109
The tampering action which Muqtil is picturing here is further
qualified by his exegesis of the following verse, Q 3:188. There he tells
a story of a Jewish confession of faith in the prophet of Islam. The
Jews say in the presence of Muhammad, We recognize (arafa) you
and we believe (saddaqa) you. However, writes the exegete, that was
not in their hearts.110 The issue in this short narrative is duplicity.
Muqtil thus understands Q 3:187 to refer to an action of the Jews as
a people to fail to act appropriately according to the knowledge about
Muhammad which they possess in the Torah.
Q 4:37
Such as are niggardly, and bid other men to be niggardly, and themselves
conceal ( yaktumna) the bounty that God has given them. We have
prepared for the unbelievers a humbling chastisement.
Muqtil identifies the subject of Q 4:37 to be the chiefs of the Jews,

specifying Kab ibn al-Ashraf.111 The Jewish leaders used to command
the lowly people of the Jews to conceal (kitmn) the matter (amr) of
Muhammad. Their motive for this, writes Muqtil, was fear lest the
ordinary Jews disclose it and explain it. So they erased (mah ) it from
the Torah. Editor Abd Allh Mahmd Shihta puts quotation marks
around the foregoing clause and notes that it is missing from one of
the two main manuscripts he is consulting.112 Muqtil then interprets
the bounty ( fadl ) of God to be the matter and description (nat) of
Muhammad in the Torah.

110
111
112
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 372 n. 2.
108
109
95
Muqtil understands this verse to refer to an action by Jewish leaders to command the Jews under their influence to conceal the information about Muhammad in the Torah. That the exegete would interpret
conceal with erase is unusual, andin the perspective of his explanations of this series of eight katama versesseems out of place.
Q 5:15
People of the Book! Now there has come to you our messenger, making
clear to you many things you have been concealing (tukhfna) of the
book, and effacing many things. There has come to you from God a light,
and a book manifest.
A third Arabic verb for concealing, akhf, appears for the first time
at Q 5:15. Muqtil explains this verse only very briefly.113 He identifies the locus of tampering (the kitb) as the Torah. The objects
which people have concealed (akhf perf.), he writes, are the matter (amr) of stoning and the matter of Muhammad.114 The actors are
not specified here, but at Q 5:13 they are the Jews, and at 5:14 they
are the Christians. The exegete further explains the scriptural effacing (or forgiving, af an) much to mean disregarding (tajwaza)
much of what you hid (katama). His use of katama as a synonym for
akhf suggests that Muqtil understands Q 5:15 to mean the action of
unspecified People of the Book to conceal the information about stoning and about Muhammad which is in the Torah.
Q 6:91
They measured not God with his true measure when they said, God has
not sent down aught on any mortal. Say: Who sent down the book
that Moses brought as a light and a guidance to men? You put it into
parchments, revealing them, and hiding (tukhfna) much; and you were
taught that you knew not, you and your fathers. Say: God. Then leave
them alone, playing their game of plunging.
Muqtil explains the phrase hiding much in the light of a narrative

which he recounts to explain an earlier part of Q 6:91.115 He glosses
akhf with asarra, and explains that the objects of concealment were
the matter (amr) of Muhammad and the matter of stoning in the
115
113
114
96
chapter four
Torah.116 Muqtils narrative is linked to the scriptural phrase, God

has not sent down aught on any mortal. He writes that this phrase
descended concerning a Jew named Mlik ibn al-D ayf. Mlik was
arguing with Umar ibn Khatt b about whether the prophet is written about (maktb) in the Torah. In the heat of the argument Mlik
became angry and exclaimed, God has not sent down a book on
anyone!117 In response, the prophet of Islam quizzes Mlik about the
book which Moses brought.118
In light of this narrative, it is clear that Muqtil understands this
verse to mean an action by a particular Jewish scholar to deny what is
written about Muhammad in the Torah.119
Muqtils Commentary on Verses Containing Other Verbs
of Tampering
In addition to verses containing verbs of alteration or concealment,
scholarly studies on the Islamic doctrine of scriptural corruption indicate additional verses which they associate with tampering. The scholarly lists intersect with the Qurns semantic field of tampering at
verses which contain the verbs labasa (to confound), law (to twist)
and nasiya (to forget).
Confounding
The phrase confound ( yalbis) the truth with vanity appears at both
Q 2:42 and 3:71, cited above. In both cases, Muqtil glosses labasa with
the verb khalata.120 He explains at Q 2:42 that the Jews mix things up
by acknowledging one part of the matter of Muhammad and concealing another part, so that they may speak the truth concerning that
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 574. In Muqtils explanation of Q 2:1, two Jews of Madna
say a similar expression, God has not sent down a book after Mosesthough Mlik
is not one of the speakers in that encounter. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 81.
118
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 574. Muqtil adds that the Jews removed (azala) Mlik
ibn al-D ayf from the fellowship of the rabbis (rabniyya) after this incident!
119
Daniel Madigan argues that kitb in the Qurn does not necessarily mean
something written down. One of the bases of his argument is the wording of Q 6:91,
which seems to separate the kitb of Moses from its being written down on qarts
(parchments). The Qurns Self-Image, 210211, 13f., etc. However, Muqtil does not
appear to pick up on this distinction.
120
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 101, 284. Khalata means to mix, mingle, confuse or confound.
116
117
97
[matter].121 There the exegete also makes reference to Q 3:71, and

quotes part of a third verse which contains labasa, Q 6:82: ...and
have not confounded their belief with evildoing. He immediately
glosses the cross reference, meaning have not mixed (khalata) with
associating (shirk).122
Muqtils exegesis of the second occurrence of the phrase adds the
story about two Jewish leaders changing their instructions to the Jewish
community within a single day, described above. At the beginning of
the day, the leaders tell them to believe in the qurn. But by evening,
they say, We looked in the Torah, and suddenly the description which
is in the Torah is not the description of Muhammad. The exegete
remarks that in this way the Jewish leaders make their religion (dn)
obscure (labasa al) for them. Perhaps they are in doubt concerning their religion.123 In both passages, the matter of Muhammad with
which the Jews are tampering is that he is a prophet and an apostle,
and that his description is with the Jews in the Torah.124
At Q 2:42 and 3:71, Muqtil understands the verb labasa to refer
to an action of Jewish leaders to confuse the lowly people by hiding
information about Muhammad which is in the Torah, and by giving
them mixed messages about how they should respond to the prophet
of Islam.
Twisting
And there is a sect of them twist ( yalwuna) their tongues with the book,
that you may suppose it part of the book, yet it is not part of the book;
and they say, It is from God, yet it is not from God, and they speak
falsehood against God, and that wittingly. (Q 3:78)
The expresssion twisting tongues appears at Q 3:78 and also in one

of the h arrafa verses examined above, Q 4:46. In his exegesis of Q
3:78, Muqtil immediately identifies the sect as a group of four Jews:
Kab ibn al-Ashraf, Mlik ibn al-D ayf, Ab Ysir, Judayy ibn Akhtab

Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 102. At Q 6:82, Muqtil gives a similar gloss for have not
confounded their faith with evildoing: meaning have not mixed (khalata) their faith
(tasdq) with associating (shirk), and have not worshipped other than him. Tafsr
Muqtil, Vol. I, 573. In the context of that explanation, Muqtil makes no mention of
the Jews, a book, or an action of tampering.
123
124
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 102, 2834.
121
122
98
chapter four
and Shaba ibn Amr.125 He finds twist their tongues with the book
to mean, with twisting (layy): tampering (tah rf) with the tongue
concerning the matter (amr) of Muhammad.126 However, in the
remainder of the verse the exegete pictures a quite different action of
tampering. Here the locus of tampering is the Torah itself. On it is
not part of the book Muqtil writes that the Jews wrote something
other than the description (nat) of Muhammad, and they erased
(mah ) his description.127 The Jews wrote a description which was
not the description of the prophet of Islam, and was not from God.
This exegesis seems to relate to the story about Jewish leaders which
Muqtil tells at Q 3:72,128 as well as to his understanding of Q 2:79, to
be described below.
At Q 4:46, twisting (layyan) with their tongues appears in parallel
with slandering (tanan) religion. In order to explain these actions,
Muqtil describes a claim made by the Jews. They say, The religion
of Muhammad is nothing, but what we have is the [true] religion. 129
On a later part of the verse, It would have been better for them,
Muqtil writes, than the tampering (tah rf) and the slander (tan) of
religion.130 Here Muqtils phrase the tampering and the slander of
religion appears to gloss the scriptural twisting with their tongues
and slandering religion.
Muqtil understands the verb law to mean a verbal action of
Jews in inappropriate response to the prophet of Islam. However, the
Qurnic contexts of the two occurrences appear to influence his exegetical direction. In one case (at Q 3:78) his interpretation concerns

127
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 286. The verb mah (also to wipe off, rub out, scratch
out, etc.) does not appear in the Qurn in relation to the theme of tampering with
earlier scriptures; but it appears at Q 17:12 in the sense of make dark, and at Q 13:39
and 42:24 in the sense of blot out (with God as subject). In Muqtils commentary
mah appears first in his explanation of Q 2:79 (see below), and later in his comments
on Q 4:37 (noted above, pp. 9495).
128
described above, p. 93.
129
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 376. The Sra also offers an explanation of the actions of
twisting and slandering. It quotes the full passage Q 4:4446, prefacing it with the following occasion of revelation: Rifa was a notable Jew. When he spoke to the apostle
he twisted his tongue and said: Give us your attention, Muhammad, so that we can
make you understand. Then he attacked (taana) Islam and reviled (ba) it. So God
sent down concerning it.... Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 400.
130
125
126
99
the information about Muhammad in the Torah, and in the other case
(at Q 4:46) he finds an action of insult toward Islam.131
Forgetting
The phrase they have forgotten (nasiya) a portion of what they were
reminded of appears at both Q 5:13 and 5:14. Muqtil understands
the first occurrence to refer to the Jews132 and the second occurrence
to the Christians.133
On the forgetting of the Jews, Muqtil writes about the covenant
which God made with the Children of Israel, stipulating that they
would believe in Muhammad. According to Muqtil, both the stipulation and the description of Muhammad could be found in the Torah.
But when God sent Muhammad, the Children of Israel disbelieved
(kafara) in him and envied (h asada) him, and said, This one is not
from the descendents of Ishq, but rather he is from the descendents
of Isml.134 Instead of offering a gloss for nasiya, Muqtil portrays an
action of the Jews to disbelieve in and envy the prophet of Islam. The
action takes place after the appearance of the prophet, when the Jews
recognize that he is not of their own kind.
On Q 5:14 Muqtil writes that God took a covenant with the Nasra
as wellin the Injlconcerning faith in Muhammad: that they
believe in Muhammad (PBUH) and follow him (tabia) and declare
him true (saddaqa), since he is written with them in the Injl.135 This
time the phrase they forgot a portion is glossed, they neglected
(taraka)136 a portion; and what they were reminded of is identified
as what they were commanded about faith in Muhammad (PBUH)
and the attestation (tasdq) to him.137
131
This is also the direction of the interpretation of twisting with their tongues
(Q 4:46) of al-Farr. He writes that this means they say rin, aiming it toward the
abuse (shatm) of Muhammad. This action indicates what is meant by twisting (allayy), he writes. Kitb man al-Qurn, Vol. I, 272. At the first occurrence of the term
rin at Q 2:104, al-Farr similarly writes that this is a word of abuse (shatm) with
the Jews. Kitb man al-Qurn, Vol. I, 69.
132
133
134
135
136
The gloss of taraka suggests a stronger sense for nasiya in Muqtils mind.
Taraka has a range of meanings from leave to omit.
137
100
chapter four
In Q 5:13 and 5:14, Muqtil understands the verb nasiya to mean an

action on the part of the People of the Book to transgress their prior
agreements with God. The Jews choose to disbelieve in the prophet
of Islam out of envy. The Christians choose to neglect Gods command concerning Muhammad. In both cases Muqtil specifies that the
necessary information about Muhammad is recorded in the scriptures
which they have.138
Muqtils Commentary on Verses Containing Expressions of Action
A number of verses which have been associated with the accusation of
scriptural corruption fall outside the semantic field of tampering. The
verbs in these verses do not immediately bring tampering to mind,
but nevertheless the expressions of which they are part have triggered
thoughts of various tampering actions. The expressions are write the
book with hands, sell for a little price, throw behind backs, and
invent a falsehood against God.
Write the Book with Hands
So woe to those who write the book with their hands, then say, This is
from God, that they may sell it for a little price; so woe to them for what
their hands have written, and woe to them for their earnings. (Q 2:79)
Apart from the four h arrafa verses described above, the verse which
is indicated most frequently in scholarly articles on tah rf is Q 2:79.
Muqtil understands this verse to mean an action by Jewish leaders in
Madna to alter the text of the Torah.139
138
Caspar and Gaudeul indicate two other nasiya verses, Q 7:51 and 7:165 (Textes
de la tradition musulmane, 63), but Muqtil does not understand these to refer to
the earlier scriptures. However at Q 2:44, a verse not included in the scholarly lists
of tampering verses given in chapter 2, Muqtil finds an action of inappropriate
response to Muhammad (Will you bid others to piety, and forget yourselves while
you recite the book?). He writes that the Jews encourage the companions of the
prophet of Islam to follow (tabia) Muhammad, but neglect (taraka) themselves and
dont follow him. Muqtil identifies the book they recite as the Torah, in which is the
announcement (bayn) of the matter (amr) and description (nat) of Muhammad.
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 102. This explanation shows a sense of an intact Torah in the
possession of the Jews and a failure to act upon its attestation of Muhammad, similar
to Muqtils understanding of nasiya at Q 5:13 & 14.
139
101
Muqtil explains that those who write the kitb with their hands
refers to writing something other than the description (nat) of
Muhammad. He writes: This is about how the chiefs of the Jews of
Madna erased (mah ) the description of Muhammad (PBUH) from
the Torah, and wrote other than his description, and told the Jews
something other than the description of Muhammad.140 In explaining a later part of the verse, what their hands have written, Muqtil
offers: meaning in the Torah of the alteration (taghyr) of the description of Muhammad.141
As noted above, the exegete finds a similar meaning in his interpretation of Q 3:78, in which the language of a kitb and a claim that
something is from God reappears. There too he writes that the Jewish
leaders wrote something other than the description of Muhammad and
erased his description.142 Muqtil therefore understands the expression
write the book with hands at Q 2:79 to mean an action by Jewish
leaders in Madna during the career of the prophet of Islam there to
alter the text of the Torah in their possession.
Sell for a Little Price
Another expression in Q 2:79 which came to be associated with
tampering in the minds of the exegetes is selling for a little price.
The language of commerce first appears in the Qurn in Q 2:16. In
explanation of the clause, Those are they who have bought error at
the price of guidance, Muqtil offers a story of Jewish response to
Muhammad:
This is about how the Jews found the description (nat) of Muhammad
the prophet (PBUH) in the Torah before he was sent, and believed in
him, assuming that he was from the descendents of Ishq, upon whom

Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 118. The verb ghayyara does not appear in the Qurn in
relation to the theme of tampering with earlier scriptures. Of its six occurrences, it
appears twice in Q 13:11: God changes ( yughayyiru) not what is in a people, until
they change what is in themselves. The verb also appears twice at Q 8:53 in a phrase
similar to that of Q 13:11. At Q 47:15 the flavor of the rivers of milk in the garden is unchanging; and Q 4:119 contains the mysterious phrase, surely I will command them and they will change Gods creation. Taghyr, the verbal noun used by
Muqtil, though it does not appear in the Qurn, eventually became a technical term
for scriptural alteration alongside tah rf and tabdl. See for example Goldziher, ber
muhammedanische Polemik, 344.
142
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 286 (above, p. 98).
140
141
102
chapter four
be peace. Then when Muhammad (PBUH) was sent from among the
Arabs, from the descendents of Isml, upon whom be peace, they disbelieved (kafara) in him out of envy (h asad), and purchased error with
guidance.143
Similar phrases are found elsewhere in the Qurn, and Muqtil often
understands these to refer to the Jewish response to the prophet of
Islam.144
The specific phrase, sell (ishtar) for a little price first occurs at
Q 2:41, then repeats some eight times in the Qurn.145 At Q 2:41,
the object of the verb is signs (yt), and Muqtil understands the
phrase to mean an action of Jewish leaders to conceal the matter of
Muhammad from the lowly people of the Jews.146 The exegete then
offers a description of the living situation of the Jewish leaders which
he subsequently repeats many times in his commentary: The chiefs
had among them food from everything [that was held in] common
from their seed and their fruits; and if they had followed (tbaa)
Muhammad (PBUH) this food would certainly have been withheld
from them.147 When sell for a little price appears together with the
verb katama, Muqtil similarly understands the Jewish leaders to be
concealing information about Muhammad for gain.148 At Q 2:79, however, the exegete associates the leaders financial motivation with writing falsehoods in the Torah.149
Muqtil thus understands the scriptural expression sell for a little
price to indicate a financial motivation among Jewish leaders for
tampering with the Torah. His characterization of Jewish leaders as
greedy for gain will be taken up again in the description of the commentarys narrative framework in chapter 6.

At Q 2:86, 2:175, 3:177, 4:44; cf. 2:90, 2:102. At Q 2:90 Muqtil again finds the
motivation of envy of Muhammad since he was from the Arabs; at Q 2:175 and 4:44
he writes that the Jewish rejection of Muhammad took place after the prophet of Islam
was sent. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 122, 156, 376.
145
At Q 2:79, 2:174, 3:77, 3:187, 3:199, 5:44, 9:9, 16:95.
146
147
A comparable expression comes in al-Whid (d. 468/1037): The Rabbis and
the learned ones used to receive provisions from the rest of the Jews and they feared
that they would not receive it if they revealed the (true) description (sifa).... Asbb
al-Nuzl (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 2006), 15. Translation by Rippin in The
function of asbb al-nuzl, 16.
148
at Q 2:174 and 3:187. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 156, 320321.
149
143
144
103
Throw Behind Backs

When there has come to them a messenger from God confirming
what was with them, a party of them that were given the book reject
(nabadha) the book of God behind their backs, as though they knew
not. (Q 2:101)
The expression throw behind backs appears only twice in the Qurn,
but polemicists and exegetes have traditionally associated this idiom
with actions of tampering. At Q 2:101, Muqtil interprets the phrase
to mean an inappropriate response to information about Muhammad
in the Torah.150 The messenger from God is Muhammad, who comes
to the Jews confirming (saddaqa) that he is a prophet and an apostle
with them (maahum) in the Torah.151 But a group of Jews reject what
is in the Torah about the matter (amr) of Muhammad through two
specific actions: they do not follow (tabia) him, and they do not make
clear to the people that Muhammad is an apostle and prophet according to his attestation (tasdq) which is with them.152
At Q 3:187, cited above, throw behind backs appears together
with the verb katama and the expression sell for a small price. In
this verse we find the wording which Muqtil has already used at Q
2:101, make it clear to the people. In his explanation of Q 3:187,
Muqtil adds that included in the covenant which God made with the
Children of Israel in the Torah was the matter (amr) of Muhammad
and the stipulation that they follow (tabia) him.153 But the Jews threw
the covenant behind their backs by concealing (kitmn) the matter of
Muhammad.154
Muqtil understands the expression throw behind backs to refer
to an action of Jewish leaders to transgress their covenant with God by
failing to acknowledge and broadcast what is written about Muhammad
in the Torah, and to submit to the authority of the prophet of Islam.
Invent a Lie Against God
Whoso forges (iftar) falsehood against God after that, those are the
evildoers. (Q 3:94)

152
153
154
150
151
104
chapter four
The expression invent a lie against God does not occur in any verse
connected by scholars to the doctrine of scriptural corruption. However, W.M. Watt described this expression as a corollary of the charge
of concealing,155 and the ambiguity of iftar (forge or fabricate a lie,
or falsehood)156 could possibly bring textual falsification to mind.157
When Muqtil first treats the expression at Q 3:94, he interprets it in
light of a story about Jacob which he tells at Q 3:93.158 There the focus
is food which God made lawful to Israel and which the people of Israel
forbade themselves. The challenge, Bring the Torah and read it, if you
are truthful, also comes at Q 3:93. Muqtil writes that inventing a lie
against God in this context would be to say that God had prohibited
a certain food in the Torah.159
The expression also occurs in close proximity to tampering verses at
Q 4:50 and 6:93. At 4:50, the lie which the Jews invent is their saying,
We are sons of God and his beloved ones.160 Similarly at Q 6:21, the
lie is the statement that God has a partner (shark).161 Then at Q 6:93,
Muqtil understands inventing a lie against God to refer to the story
of Musaylima ibn H abb the liar (kadhdhb) when he claimed that
God inspired him with prophethood.162
There are two other occurrences of this expression in the Qurn,163
but the verses examined above suffice to show that the exegete understands invent a lie against God to signal a variety of tampering
actions which are not associated with falsification of earlier scriptures.
A similar expression with the same object, kadhib, appears twice in an
important tampering context. At Q 3:75, Muqtil interprets the phrase
speak a lie against God to mean that Jews are lying about what is in
157
Toshihiko Izutsu offers this expression as an example of a semantic cluster: In
the Qurn the verb iftar (to invent, to forge) most frequently takes as its grammatical object the noun kadhib (a lie), thus forming a well-nigh inseparable group.
Ethico-Religious Concepts, 40.
158
159
160
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 378. This is the claim of Jews and Christians at Q 5:18.
161
162
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 575. Here the exegete is following the wording of the
verse itself, he said I am inspired (wah IV) when he was not inspired in anything.
Musaylima appears in Muqtils Tafsr once more in the rabbinical test of prophethood story at Q 18:9. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. II, 575. Cf. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies,
122.
163
At Q 6:144 and 7:37.
155
156
105
the Torah concerning the prohibition of shedding blood and taking

wealth unlawfully.164 The second occurrence comes at Q 3:78, where
it is associated with an accusation of textual falsification. The lie that
the Jews speak is that what they have written is the description of
Muhammad.165
Analysis of Muqtils Exegesis
Moving from observation and description into analysis and reflection
leads this study into the consideration of many fascinating motifs as
well as some difficult questions. The analysis follows the same order as
the introduction of the commentary passages, beginning with Muqtils
exegesis of verses containing verbs of alteration.
Muqtils Understanding of the Alteration Verses
Once more, because of the prominence of the h arrafa verses in the
scholarly lists of verses associated with the accusation of alteration,
Muqtils exegesis of these four verses is analyzed in the greatest depth.
Muqtil reveals his understanding of h arrafa in these verses largely
through the narratives he offers. He also supplies a simple gloss for
the Qurnic text which often indicates what he considers synonyms
for important terms in this study. Sometimes he will further specify
the content of vague terms such as kalim. Wherever possible, he gives
particular names for the anonymous scriptural references.
Adding Words to a Verbal Report
Muqtil develops the meaning of h arrafa in Q 2:75 by telling a story
about the Jews at the time of Moses. At the start of the commentary on
this verse, the people in the foreground are the Jews of Madna, and the
issue is their believing in, or declaring the truth of, Muhammad. In his
commentary on the following verse, Muqtil continues to describe the
Jews of Madna and their response to the prophet. In the extended narrative offered to explain the meaning of a party of them that heard the
word (kalm) of God then tampered with it, kalm is used repeatedly
164
165
106
chapter four
to refer to a verbal communication of God. They heard the kalm,

according to the verse and reinforced in the commentary. The action of
the group from the seventy Jews which explains for Muqtil the meaning of h arrafa is their adding to the verbal report of the commandments of God an extra alleviation clause. The exegete offers this story
before actually giving the part of the verse in which h arrafa appears.
After giving the tampering clause from the verse, Muqtil gives no further comment on the verb h arrafa, which signals that he had already
explained the tampering action indicated by the verb before introducing that part of the verse.
It is the addition of a kind of escape clause to the verbal commands
of God which Muqtil finds to be the tampering (h arrafa) indicated by
the verse. There is no indication in Muqtils exegesis that kalm refers
to a written record, or that the tampering envisioned in the verse had
to do with a written record. There is no mention here of the Torah.
Thus the verb h arrafa appears in the verse, and it is repeated in the
commentary, but Muqtil does not understand this verb to mean here
a material alteration of the text of the Torah (or any other scripture).
Kalm is the object, repeated by Muqtil, and it does not mean for him
a written text of scripture. Therefore, Muqtil understands the use of
h arrafa in Q 2:75 to indicate an action of tampering other than causing a material change to a text of earlier scripture.
Abusing the Prophet and Slandering Religion
The meaning of h arrafa in Q 4:46 for Muqtil reflects an action which
is described in the same verse. The exegete offers the term tah rf to
qualify the action which he envisions from the verb h arrafa, but he
does not give a definition of the term. Instead, he characterizes the
action with a phrase from further on in the verse itself, twisting with
their tongues. He identifies the object of the verb as the description
of Muhammad. And he glosses the mysterious phrase out of its places
as out of its declaration (bayn) in the Torah. The meanings of bayn
also include clearness, plainness, and obviousness. Muqtil means to
say here that there is something that is clear from the Torah which
the Jews know but are for some reason not acting upon. The most
straightforward conclusion to draw from this is that Muqtil envisions
an intact Torah in the hands of the Jews of Madna. There is no suggestion in this exegesis that the Jews of Madna are in possession of
a previously corrupted text. There is also no indication of an accu-
107
sation that the Jews are in the process of corrupting a text in their
possession.
The speeches which follow in the verse provide for Muqtil the illustration of what he means by the verb h arrafa. By all indicationsin
the verse itself, in the exegetes brief glosses at Q 4:46, and in his exegesis of Q 2:104these are speeches of resistance or attempts to abuse.
Muqtils comment on twisting with their tongues and slandering
religion is that the Jews are denigrating the religion of Muhammad in
contrast to their own. He therefore understands the speeches to signify
disrespect or insubordination to Muhammad. In his explanation of Q
2:104, where rin first appears, he understands this mysterious word
to be a term of abuse among the Jews. The object of the verb twisting in this scenario is not the Torah or the description of Muhammad
therein, but rather the religion of Muhammad in the present encounter.166 When Muqtil uses the term tah rf a second time, he joins it
with slandering religion in such a manner as to show that he understands the tah rf of the Jews to be their twisting with their tongues.
It is the Jews action of abuse toward the prophet of Islam which
Muqtil finds to be the tampering (h arrafa) indicated by the verse.
There is no hint here of a concept of a material alteration of the text of
the Torah. Rather, in his commentary on the expression musaddiq in
the verse which follows, Muqtil claims an attestation of the prophethood and apostleship of Muhammad with you in the Torah. The
attestation is with (ma) the Jews. There is no suggestion here that the
attestation is no longer with them because the text has previously been
corrupted.
Refusing to Acknowledge the Truth
The exegesis of the verb h arrafa in Q 5:13 is dominated by the concept
of covenant, a key term which appears in the Qurnic verse immediately prior. Muqtil presents the idea that the covenant which God
took with the people of Israel included a clause to anticipate and accept
Muhammad. Muqtil supplies a gloss on the words (kalim), that they
Wansbrough wrote that at Q 4:46, the action explicit in tah rf could only apply
to the written word. Quranic Studies, 76. However, Muqtil seems to have understood the tampering action to be the speech of the Jews in conversation/confrontation
with Muhammad. The same could be said of T abars understanding of the verse,
described below. Cf. Burton, The Corruption of the Scriptures, 101.
166
108
chapter four
are the description (sifa) of Muhammad. An important feature of this

passage is the phrase, He is written (maktb) with them (indahum)
in the Torah. The most natural conclusion to draw from Muqtils
use of this expression is that he envisions an intact text of the Torah
in the possession of the Jews of Madna. At issue for the exegete is
not a previously corrupted text, but rather an inappropriate response
to what is in the text. The basis for this conclusion is that according
to Muqtil, when Muhammad appeared they disbelieved in him and
envied him, and said, This one is not from the descendants of Ishq,
but rather he is from the descendants of Isml. The narrative logic
is that the description of Muhammad is there in the Torah which they
possess, but that when he appears they refuse to acknowledge it out
of envy.
In his exegesis of the following verse, Muqtil seems to understand
the Christians in a similar way. What is clear about Muhammad, and
the covenant agreement to follow him and to believe in him, is written (maktb) with them (indahum) in the Injl. The forgetting of the
Christians is glossed taraka, which could mean to neglect, but could
also mean omit, renounce, abandon or pass over. It is not clear what
Muqtil has in mind here, but it is hard to see how he could take the
meaning of forgetting beyond neglect. Certainly the theme of rejection, denial, and failure to believe is the general mood.
It is the Jews action of deceit toward the prophet of Islam in a faceto-face encounter which Muqtil finds to be the tampering (h arrafa)
indicated by Q 5:13. In the exegetes mind, the scriptures of the Jews
and Christians contain a covenant in which the proper response to
Muhammad is specified. But the envy that has grown in the hearts
of the People of the Book, born out of ethnic pride, has caused them
to conceal and to neglect the truths written in the divine books they
possess.
Setting aside a Torah Command
In Muqtils exegesis of h arrafa in Q 5:41, the long narrative about the
Jews and the verse of stoning takes centre stage.167 Since Muqtil gives
Georges Vajda claimed that the stoning verse story was the most typical case
for the illegitimate alteration of the Torah, upon which the Muslim tradition insists
with the greatest complacence. Juifs et Musulmans selon le H adt, Journal Asiatique
ccxxix (1937), 92.
167
109
no etymological or grammatical explanation for h arrafa, the meaning

of the verb in this case must come out of the narrative he offers. Elements in Muqtils narrative, such as the house of study, asking for the
best Torah scholar, the prophets question about finding the ruling in
the book, and Ibn Sriys remark that he might have concealed the
Torah judgment if Muhammad had not adjured him to honesty, all
point to a scenario in which an intact Torah is in the possession of
the Jews of Madna at the time of the prophet of Islam. There is no
suggestion in the story that the text of the Torah which the Jews of
Madna possess in their house of study has previously been corrupted.
Rather, the ruling against adultery is found in that book, but the Jews
do not want to apply it because of the status of the adulterers, and
therefore they do not acknowledge it openly. Ibn Sriy confesses to
Muhammad that he found the stoning penalty in the Torah, and there
is no indication here that he is referring to a Torah which has since
been corrupted. Ibn Sriy is described as a young man, which suggests both that he is bright and fresh,168 and that the Torah in which
he found the stoning penalty is a current copy.
A number of elements in this story make it a prime generator of
meaning and momentum and influence the understanding of the verse:
First of all, the dishonesty and deviousness of the Jews of Khaybar,
and the connivance of the Jews of Madna, are revealed to the reader
right at the start. A test of prophethood is set up, the details of which
Muhammad does not know but to which the reader is privy.169 The
conditions of successfully passing the test are provided beforehand,
along with the possibility that Muhammad may succeedand that the
Jews know he may succeed. With the help of Gabriel, Muhammad
devises a clever stratagem for identifying the Jewish scholar who knows
the Torah best. He adjures Ibn Sriy, with insight into his Jewish religion, in such a way that he cannot but tell the truth. And the climax
is striking: this young, bright scholar who knows the Torah best of all
admits that he found the stoning penalty in that scripture; and then
adds for good measurewhile he is still feeling sworn to honesty and
before he mysteriously disbelieves againBy God, Oh Muhammad,
the Jews do indeed know that you are a true prophet, but they envy
The Sra also describes Ibn Sriya as a top scholar, the most learned man of his
time in the Hijaz in Torah studies. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, 239.
169
On the rabbinical test of prophethood, see Wansbrough, Quranic Studies,
124125.
168
110
chapter four
you. Muhammad has successfully passed the test of prophethood that

was cynically placed before him, and his exultation at reviving one of
the sunnas of God becomes an epiphany of self-discovery.
There are details in the narrative, and in Muqtils supercommentary on the story, which help further to qualify what the exegete
understands to be the meaning of h arrafa in Q 5:41. Ibn Sriy tells
Muhammad he would have concealed (katama) the Torah ruling from
him if he had not been afraid of eternal punishment. Then immediately after the mention of Ibn Sriys apostasy, Muqtil quotes 5:15,
which uses another verb for concealing (akhf). The exegete explains
this cross reference to mean hiding what is in the Torah about the
command of stoning and the description of Muhammad. Muqtil
again says, later in his comments on 5:41, that the action of the
Jews, for which God does not want to purify their hearts, is concealing (katama). Taken together, these details show that the tampering
action which the exegete understands from h arrafa here is concealing
or neglecting a judgment which can be found in an existing booknot
an action of textual alteration.170
Muhammads exclamation that he is reviving one of the sunnas of
God is also a very important indicator of meaning. The prophet of
Islam is here claiming a link with Gods revelations of the past. The
attestation of his prophethood in this narrative is his ability to make
a judgment which is contained in the Torah. His authority is measured here against the accepted authority of an earlier scripture.171 The
proof of his authority is that the judgment he makes is written down
in the Torah andcruciallycan be read from the Torah at that very
170
Concealing is also the concern of the version of this story found in Bukhr.
There it is Abd Allh ibn Salm who challenges the Jews to bring the Torah and recite
it, after the Jews have told Muhammad that they find no stoning punishment for adultery in the Torah. The Jewish scholar who used to teach the Torah to the Jews puts his
hand on the verse of stoning, and proceeds to read what was above and below his
hand. Abd Allh ibn Salm removes the scholars hand from the page, and the Jews
have to acknowledge that the verse of stoning was there in the Torah. Sah h al-Bukhr
(Cairo: Al-Arabi, 1955), Vol. VIII, 213214 (kitb al-tawh d, bb 51).
171
More extensive discussion of this theme will be presented in chapter 6. In Q
2:101 and 3:81, a messenger from God confirms what is with them. In his comments
on Q 2:101, Muqtil writes that the messenger is Muhammad, who confirms that he is
the prophet and messenger with the Jews in the Torah. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 126.
Q 3:81 refers to a covenant with the prophets in which one of the stipulations was to
believe in a messenger to come who would confirm what is with them. At this verse,
Muqtil again writes that the messenger is Muhammad, and that what is with the
Jews is the attestation of Muhammad in the Torah. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 287.
111
time and place. For Muqtil to suggest at that point that the Torah in
the hands of the Jews is corrupted would destroy the proof of authority which is being advanced.172
It is not clear why Muqtil tells the additional story of three things
which only a prophet knows at this point. It seems to be triggered
by his cross-reference of 5:15 and the phrase, effacing much. One
would expect the exegete to explain the phrase at Q 5:15 rather than
here. Perhaps after telling one story of a test of Muhammads prophethood, he finds it natural to tell a second. Another possibility is that the
involvement of Ibn Sriy in both stories prompts the exegete to tell
them together, with the Torah experts conversion coming at the end
of one story, and his apostasy at the end of the other.
Substituting One Saying for Another
Muqtils exegesis of the baddala verses is dominated by the story of
the Ban Isrl entering Jerusalem at the time of Joshua. At Q 2:59 and
7:162 he understands the action of change to be the verbal substitution of one expression for another. He also mentions the alteration of
the entering posture. The transgression at issue is disobedience to a
divine command compounded by a mocking attitude. As noted above,
Muqtils two versions of the entering story do not agree in the details
of what the wrongdoers said and did. At Q 2:111, he understands the
tampering action to be the failure of the Jews of Madna to believe in
Muhammad, in spite of the blessings which God had given to their
forefathers.
172
This conclusion seems to be supported by the fact that during the first centuries of Islam, the stoning verse story was connected with various other verses in the
Qurn. For example, Abd al-Razzq narrates the story to explain Q 5:44 (Surely we
sent down the Torah, wherein is guidance and light; thereby the prophets who had
surrendered themselves gave judgment). Abd al-Razzq concludes his exegesis of
Q 5:44 by claiming that the stoning verse story shows Muhammad to be one of the
surrendered prophets who gave judgment according to the Torah. Tafsr al-Qurn
al-azz, Vol. I, 185. In his kitb al-tafsr, Bukhr tells the story around the words
which he understands to be spoken by Muhammad, Bring you the Torah now and
recite it, if you are truthful (Q 3:93). Sah ih al-Bukhr, Vol. V, 170 (kitb Tafsr
al-Qurn, bb 58). What is clear from these two uses of the story is that the narrative
was understood to demonstrate Muhammads ability to judge in accordance with a
ruling in an intact Torah.
112
chapter four
Muqtils Understanding of the Concealment Verses
The 11 verses containing the verbs katama, asarra and akhf are all
understood in a similar way by Muqtil. In each case, he identifies the
locus of the tampering action as the Torah. At Q 2:140 and 2:146, he
mentions the Injl as well. The actors are consistently Jews in Arabia at
the time of Muhammad, according to the exegete, and in many verses
he specifies that they are particular leaders of the Jewish community
in Madna. At Q 2:140, Muqtil adds the Nasra of Najrn at the time
of Muhammad to the Yahd of Madna. The object of tampering in all
but one passage is information about the prophet of Islam. The exegete
claims in his comments on Q 2:146 that the focus of concealment is
rather the information about the qibla in the Torah. At Q 5:15 and
6:91 he adds the matter of stoning to the matter of Muhammad, and
at Q 2:159 he indicates these two objects plus commandments of what
is permitted and forbidden.
Muqtil writes that the Jews are concealing this information. He
appears to understand all three verbs to refer to a similar action: at Q
5:15 he gives katama as a synonym of akhf, and at Q 6:91 he glosses
akhf with asarra. The meaning of the action he pictures is qualified
by the words he gives to accompany the concealing verbs. At Q 2:146
he sets katama in a parallel relationship with jah ada, and at Q 2:159
he links katama with both jah ada and kadhdhaba. At Q 2:42 and 3:71
he finds acknowledging to be the opposite action to concealing. The
motivation for this concealing, Muqtil writes at Q 3:73, is envy and
ethnic pride. The exegete thus understands concealing to be an action
of inappropriate and ill-conceived response to the truth in scripture
about the prophet of Islam.
The frequency of concealing verbs in Sras 27, and as a consequence the frequency of concealing explanations in the commentary,
has a cumulative effect. Verbs of concealing appear more often than
verbs of alteration.173 The accusation of concealing assumes an intact
text of scripture. It therefore does not fit logically with the accusation
173
Here Watts statement that more is said about inventing falsehood than about
concealing is potentially misleading. The Early Development, 51. Watt has in mind
the verb iftar (invent a lie against God), dealt with on p. 104 above. As was seen
there, this verb seldom appears in a tampering context in the Qurn, and scholars of
polemic have not connected verses containing this verb with the accusation of altering
the earlier scriptures.
113
of falsifying the text. Such an accusation would eliminate the narrative

theme of the culpability of the Jews for responding inappropriately to
the truth which is in their possession.
Muqtils Understanding of Other Tampering Verses
The theme of inappropriate response to the prophet of Islam dominates Muqtils exegesis of verses containing the verbs labasa, law and
nasiya. However, his interpretation of one of the law verses, Q 3:78,
brings out a noteworthy statement of the accusation of textual falsification. The phrase, twist their tongues with the book, would appear
to refer to an act of verbal tampering, and Muqtil glosses it as such.
But when he explains the subsequent clause in the verse, he speaks of
the Torah and of the actions of erasing and writing. At Q 4:46, Muqtil
takes the similar phrase twisting with their tongues in the direction
of Jewish verbal disrespect in the presence of Muhammad. There the
context provides the words of a conversation and the parallel verb
traducing. There is no mention of tampering with a text. This leads
to the conclusion that Muqtils statement of textual falsification at Q
3:78 is triggered not by law but rather by the scriptural clause, that
you may suppose it part of the book, yet it is not part of the book; and
they say, it is from God, yet it is not from God. As noted above, this
clause bears a resemblance to the wording of Q 2:79, about which the
exegete also makes a statement concerning textual falsification. His
understanding of Q 3:78, therefore, is influenced by his interpretation
of Q 2:79.174
Muqtil understands verses containing labasa to refer to actions by
Jewish leaders to confuse the Jewish community by concealing information about Muhammad in the Torah and by giving mixed messages about how to respond to the prophet of Islam. He interprets the
nasiya verses to mean choices by the People of the Book to disbelieve
in Muhammad in spite of the clear commandments in their scriptures
to believe in him and follow him.
See also the analysis of Muqtils interpretation of Q 2:79 below, pp. 114115.
174
114
chapter four
Muqtils Understanding of Verses Containing Expressions of Action

The scriptural expression of action which is most suggestive of an act
of falsification for Muqtil is the phrase those who write the kitb
with their hands at Q 2:79. As described above, the exegete explains
this expression to mean that Jewish leaders in Madna erased the
description of Muhammad from the Torah and wrote in its place a
false description which did not match the prophet of Islam. This verse
contains neither the verb h arrafa nor any other verb in the Qurns
semantic field of tampering. Even so, it triggers for Muqtil his strongest statement of the falsification charge.
Andrew Rippin writes that among the asbb al-nuzl reports that
are available for Q 2:79, virtually all centre on the notion of the malicious alteration of Jewish scripture.175 Attention must also be drawn
to the tradition in the Sah h of Bukhr which seems to relate to the
wording of Q 2:79:
Abd Allh ibn Abbs said, O society of Muslims! How can you question the People of the Book, when your book which he has sent down to
his prophet (PBUH) is the more recent news from God and you recite
it undistorted ( yushab); and when God has told you that the People of
the Book changed (baddala) what God wrote, and altered ( ghayyara)
the book with their hands, then said, It is from God, that they may sell
it for a little price? Wont the knowledge that has come to you stop you
from asking them? No, by God, we have never seen a man from them
ask you about what has been sent down to you.176
The phrases with their hands and from God, that they may sell it
for a little price are identical in scripture and tradition.177
It would appear that this tradition was in circulation already at
the time of Muqtil, and that the similarities of wording led him to
recount it in his exegesis of Q 2:79. The question which this exegesis
raises is why Muqtils citation of a strong tradition of falsification at
175
The function of asbb al-nuzl, 1516. Cf. al-Whid on Q 2:79, Asbb
al-Nuzl, 15.
176
In the kitb al-shahdt, bb 31. Sah h al-Bukhr, Vol. III, 163. The tradition
repeats in slightly different wordings in the kitb al-tawhd and the kitb al-itism
bi-al-kitb wa al-sunna. Goldziher highlighted this h adth and called it the locus classicus of the accusation of falsification in the Tradition literature. ber muhammedanische Polemik, 344. Schreiner also gave the tradition a prominent place. Zur
Geschichte der Polemik, 593.
177
The version of this tradition in the kitb al-tawhd, bb 42 has they wrote with
their hands. Sah h al-Bukhr, Vol. VIII, 208.
115
this point appears to be so out of keeping with both the context in the
commentary and his understanding of the majority of the tampering
verses in the Qurn.178 An answer to this question will be advanced
in chapter 6 in relation to the operation of the narrative framework in
Muqtils Tafsr.
The three other expressions of action bring to mind a variety of
other tampering actions for the exegete. He associates sell for a little
price with a financial motivation for concealing information about
Muhammad in the Torah or, in the case of Q 2:79, for writing falsehoods. The leaders of the Jews are consistently named as the actors,
and their tampering action is part of their oppression of the lowly
people. The exegete interprets throw behind backs to mean a willful
rejection by Jewish leaders of the authority of the prophet of Islam. Its
rare occurrence is associated with tampering contexts. Finally, inventing a lie against God signifies for Muqtil a more general action of
speaking falsely about what God has commanded in the past, or indeed
speaking theological falsehood which is true blasphemy.
178
This is a question which Goldziher failed to pursue in his discussion of the tah rf
theme in the ah dth. ber muhammedanische Polemik, 3445. The tradition cited
above from the kitb al-shahdt seems to be the only tradition in Bukhr about
alteration of the Torah. At the same time Bukhrs Sah h contains many traditions
which tell of interactions between the Jews and Muhammad in the narrative style of
Muqtils commentary and the Sra. These other traditions seem to assume an intact
Torah in the hands of the Jews. Examples from kitb al-tawhd (bb 51) are the version of the stoning verse story associated with Q 3:93, and the tradition which Goldziher himself quoted, The People of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew
and give its interpretation ( fassara) in Arabic for the people of Islam. Vajda cited
the tradition in Ahmad ibn H anbal about a rabbi reading the Torah in the synagogue and stopping at the description of Muhammad; and the story in Ibn Sad of
Muhammad adjuring a Jew to tell him whether his description was to be found in
the Torah. Juifs et Musulmans selon le H adt, 92. Lazarus-Yafeh noted Ibn Sads
story about traditionists who read the Torah every week. Tawrt, 394. M.J. Kister
collected a large number of traditions about the Torah from a wide variety of sources,
and found general acceptance of the opinion that the Torah contains information
about Muhammad and his community. H addith an ban isrla wa-l-haraja: A
study of an early tradition, Israel Oriental Studies 2 (1972), 225. Numerous traditions
advance specific sayings as being from the Torah and other earlier scriptures, including Kitb Dniyl. Kister, H addith, 226236. In one tradition, Reading the Torah
was made lawful by the Prophets permission. Kister, H addith, 231. Traditions
which report Muhammad as saying, neither believe nor disbelieve the People of the
Book, or as forbidding Umar to read or copy the Torahthough certainly reflecting
ambivalence about previous scripturesdo not constitute accusations of falsification.
Schreiner suggested that even when there is accusation of falsification in these traditions, it concerns interpretation rather than text. Zur Geschichte der Polemik, 593.
116
chapter four
Conclusion
It is clear from the analysis of Muqtils exegesis of the tampering verses

that he did not understand the verbs h arrafa and baddala to refer to
an act of textual falsification of the earlier scriptures by the People
of the Book either in the pre-Islamic past or in Madna at the time
of Muhammad. Rather, he explains the verses containing these verbs
with a variety of tampering actions which revolve around response to
authority. He recounts stories of verbal alteration of divine commands
from the history of the Children of Israel. He also tells stories of inappropriate Jewish response to the prophet of Islam.
Muqtil understands Q 2:79 to refer to a Jewish act of falsification of
the text of the Torah. This understanding carries over into his exegesis
of Q 3:78. The trigger for this interpretation is not the appearance of
h arrafa, baddala or any other verb in the semantic field of tampering, but rather the phrase, write the book with their hands (Q 2:79).
Muqtil places the action in Madna at the time of Muhammads rule
as part of an inappropriate Jewish response to the appearance of the
prophet of Islam. According to Muqtils understanding of these two
verses, the words of the Torah which the Jews falsify are an unspecified
description of Muhammad. Muqtil does not offer a second possible
object of falsification. In his exegesis of neither these nor other tampering verses does Muqtil advance a suggestion of the corruption of
pre-Qurnic scriptures prior to the rise of Islam.
The remainder of Muqtils interpretations of some 25 verses of
tampering described in this chapter portray a variety of actions of tampering which assume intact scriptures in the hands of the People of the
Book. Muqtils preferred method of explaining these verses is clearly
through narrative. He mostly tells about how the Jews of Madna conceal the contents of the books which are with them. The concealment
is largely done by remaining silent while Muslims are asking for information from the Torah, or when God has put on them the responsibility in a past covenant to announce the information about Muhammad
to the people. In fact they give mixed signals to the common people
by changing their message in the course of a single day. Tampering
actions also include verbal demonstrations of disrespect toward the
prophet of Islam, or rejection of his authority, or refusing to follow
and obey him according to the stipulations of the covenant. The Jews
take the law of God so lightly that they set aside important commandments just because they lack the will to apply them. The intact text of
the Torah seems to remain solidly in the background of all of these
various actions of tampering.
chapter five
T abar on the Qurnic verses of tampering

After Muqtil had completed his commentary on the Qurn around
the middle of the second Islamic century, the store of exegetical traditions grew rapidly as more and more Muslim scholars entered the
challenging discipline of tafsr. Toward the end of the third Islamic
century, T abar gathered the various opinions about the meanings of
Muslim scripture into a massive collection called the Jmi al-bayn
an tawl y al-Qurn (The sum of clarity concerning the interpretation of the verses of the Qurn). The unwieldy size of the work
has prevented it from ever becoming very popular. For the scholar
of Islamic origins, however, a key advantage of the commentary is its
abundance of material.
Another advantage of the commentary is the felicitous arrangement
of the exegetical comments, which allows the scholar to quickly locate
the discussion of any particular part of any verse. T abar treats each
verse of the Qurn separately. He first quotes the complete verse, then
offers his commentary in segments according to the distinct phrases or
clauses of the verse. He signals the start of a new segment with the formula, Remarks concerning the interpretation of his [Gods] saying,
Almighty,1 after which he gives the phrase or clause from the verse.
In each segment, then, he offers a collection of opinions on that
part of the verse.2 The opinions come in the form of h adth which
are attributed to authorities of the past and connected to them in
each case through an isnd. T abars commentary contains more than
35,400 such traditions attested through 13,026 different chains of
transmission.3 Traditions are attributed most often to Abd Allh ibn
Abbs and Mujhid. Heribert Horst found that a single isnd leading
from Muhammad ibn Sad Ktib al-Wqid back to Ibn Abbs appears
some 1564 times.4 Other authorities cited frequentlyincluding in the
Cf. Loth, T abars Korancommentar, 601.
Calder identifies the citation of named authorities as his second structural characteristic of Qurnic commentary. Tafsr from T abar to Ibn Kathr, 103.
3
Horst, Zur berlieferung im Korankommentar at -T abars, 291.
4
Zur berlieferung im Korankommentar at-T abars, 294.
1
2
118
chapter five
passages examined in this studyare Qatda, al-Sudd, al-Rab and

Ibn Zayd. In terms of exegetes of the formative period, Abd al-Razzq
is included in a number of the most common isnds,5 while al-Farr
appears in the guise of T abars Kfan grammarian.6
In each segment of T abars commentary on each verse, he groups
the traditions according to different possibilities of interpretation for
the phrase or clause in question. He will sometimes preface a group
of traditions with the formula, Interpreters disagree concerning the
meaning of Gods having said that. After presenting the views of his
authorities, T abar will frequently indicate which interpretation he
prefers, sometimes prefacing his views by qla Ab Jafar, and often
by the formula, For me, the first of these remarks in merit is.... He
argues his case on the basis of parallel Qurnic passages, grammar,
poetry, theology, lexicographical criteria, or whatever seems to work
for him in the context. In one of the h arrafa passages, for example,
T abar argues for one interpretation on the basis that two men gave
it, and that both were companions of the apostle of God.7
The material cited by T abar from his authorities includes a wide
variety of literary types. Most often he cites glosses of words, or identification of pronouns. In many passages, including the passages of
this study, T abar relays units of narrative. These narratives may be
accounts of Biblical figures of the distant past, or reports of the dealings of the prophet of Islam with various groups. Sometimes a narrative tradition about the prophet will be brought in to serve as a sabab
al-nuzl. Norman Calder observed that T abar preferred narrative
both popular and Qurnicto theological dogma.8
Frequently T abar will supply his own paraphrase or amplification
of the verse, into which he inserts glosses and identifications cited earlier in his traditions. He offers etymological explanations or definitions
of words he considers difficult or important. He frequently takes time
to try to resolve evident grammatical difficulties in the verse, quoting lines of Arabic poetry as shawhid. If he is familiar with variant
5
See the isnd charts of Horst, Zur berlieferung im Korankommentar at-
T abars, 296, 301.
6
Cooper, The Commentary on the Qurn, xiii.
7
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 308.
8
Calder, Tafsr from T abar to Ibn Kathr, 108. Calders observation will be tested
in the description and analysis sections below.
t abar on the qurnic verses of tampering
119
readings on any part of the verse, he will include a discussion of the

possibilities.
Scholars of tafsr have noted the divergence and even the contradiction9 within the material which T abar cites. In contrast to Muqtils
confident setting forth of a single explanation of the verse, T abars
exegesis is a polyvalent reading of Muslim scripture10offering not
only differing interpretations but open disagreement among the chosen authorities.11 The interpretation he prefers may or may not have
the support of a traditional authority; his opinion may not appear to
be based in any way on historical criticism. At times he may bring
in quite sophisticated discussions of dogmatics or law.12 But what
is T abars role in the selection and presentation of this diverse
material?
Charfi suggests that the plurality of interpretations offered by the
exegete create an impression in the readers mind, seeking to influence his feelings rather than to provide any intellectual conviction.13
Other scholars give T abar the creative role of an exegete-theologian.14
He appears to have been upholding an Islamic orthodoxy of his time,
and omits, for example, any reference to Muqtil, presumably because
of his tarnished reputation as a reliable source.15 Bosworth concludes,
His own dogmatic beliefs appear to have been basically within the
framework of orthodox Islam as conceived, e.g. in the environment
of Ibn H anbal just before al-T abars time and that of al-Ashar after
him.16
The following descriptions and analyses of T abars exegesis of the
tampering verses follow the order of chapter four: alteration verbs,
Charfi, Christianity in the Quran Commentary of T abar, 145.
Calder, Tafsr from T abar to Ibn Kathr, 103, cf. 121122.
11
Tottoli highlights this characteristic of T abars commentary as the feature that
determined its persuasive force and its unifying power and allowed the story of salvation to take root in the collective memory of the community of believers. Biblical
Prophets, 102.
12
Rippin, Al-T abar, 321.
13
Charfi, Christianity in the Quran Commentary of T abar, 145.
14
Claude Gilliot, Exgse, langue, et thologie en Islam: lexgse coranique de Tabari
(m 311/923) (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1990), 281. cf. Loth, T abar ist
eben nicht Historiker in unserm Sinne, sondern, wie Masd richtig bemerkt hat,
Theologin des Wortes hchster Bedeutung. T abars Korancommentar, 602.
15
Rippin, Al-T abar, 321. Goldziher noted that Kalb and Wqid were also on
T abars black list. Richtungen, 87, n. 6. And yet T abar makes use of Ibn Ishq, whose
narratives are so similar to Muqtils.
16
Bosworth, al-T abar, 12.
9
10
120
chapter five
concealing verbs, other verbs of tampering, and expressions of action.

In this chapter, however, analysis of each group of exegetical passages
immediately follows description. Also, the quotation of the verses of
tampering from the Qurn is not repeated.
T abars Commentary on Verses of Alteration
Description: Wide Variety of Exegetical Traditions
T abars exegesis of the h arrafa verses is examined first in this section.
Again, the descriptions of the h arrafa interpretations contain greater
detail because of the prominence of these verses in the lists given by
scholars of Muslim polemic, as well as in the popular Muslim doctrine
of scriptural corruption today. These longer descriptions also serve to
demonstrate T abars overall exegetical routine. His exegesis of the
three verses containing baddala are then described in a more concise
fashion.
Q 2:75
T abar divides Q 2:75 into four segments for his commentary.17 He
provides simple glosses for several of the phrases at the start of the
verse. He identifies the unspecified pronouns they and you as the
Jews and the companions of Muhammad. He gives a grammatical
explanation of the word farq (party) along with a couple of lines of
poetry to exemplify its use. In the course of his commentary on the
verse he brings in the views of six authorities, and offers eight ah dth,
complete with asnd. The exegesis also includes an example of paraphrase or amplification, in which T abar assumes the second person
voice, expands on the verse, and applies it directly to the Jews at the
time of Muhammad.
T abar immediately says that the interpreters (ahl al-tawl ) disagree about the meaning of the phrase, there is a party of them that
heard Gods word, and then tampered with it, and that after they had
comprehended it, wittingly. According to the first view, those who
tampered were the Jewish scholars (attributed to Mujhid), and the
locus of the tampering was the Torah (al-Sudd). The exegete relays
a scenario from Ibn Zayd, who also saw the object of tampering as
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 244249.
17
121
the Torah. According to this scenario, the Jewish religious leaders

tampered with the sanctions and prohibitions in the Torah, changing
them. Whenever a person with a righteous claim came to them with
a bribe, they would bring out the book of God and judge according
to that authority. But if a person making a false claim brought them
a bribe, they would bring out to him a second book,18 according to
which he would be judged to be in the right. If, however, a man came
to them inquiring concerning a matter wherein there was neither truth
nor falsehood, and did not offer a bribe, they would enjoin him to act
truthfully.19 According to Ibn Zayds account, at this point God sent
down Q 2:44: Will you bid the people to piety and forget yourselves,
while you recite scripture? Do you not understand?
Other interpreters with whom T abar is familiar say that the Jews
indicated in this verse heard the word of God like the prophets heard,
then tampered with it after hearing it (al-Rab). Ibn Ishaq said that
they heard the word of God cannot mean they heard the Torah
because all of the Jews heard the Torah. Rather, this phrase concerns
those who asked Moses to see their Lord, and who were subsequently
struck by lightning.
The narrative which came from some of the learned through Ibn
Ishaq is that the Jews said to Moses, O Moses, something prevents
us from seeing God, so make us hear his speech (kalm) when he
speaks with you.20 Moses then made this request of God, and God
granted it. God said, command them to purify themselves, and to
purify their clothes, and to fast. The Jews did so. Then Moses went out
with them as far as the mountain al-T ur. When the cloud covered the
Jews, Moses commanded them to fall down prostrate. God spoke with
Moses, and the Jews heard his word (kalm) commanding them and
forbidding them. They understood what they heard. Then Moses and
the Jews returned to the main community of Ban Isrl. And when
they arrived, writes T abar, a party of them tampered with (h arrafa)
what he had commanded them. Moses said to Ban Isrl, God
commanded you such-and-such, but the group of Jews indicated by
a party of them said, On the contrary, he said such-and-suchin
contradiction to what God had said to them.
Literally that book, dhlika l-kitb. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 246.
20
18
19
122
chapter five
T abar indicates his preference for this second interpretation of

the versethe closest to what the ostensive reading21 indicates. The
verse concerns a group of Jews who heard his word (kalm) at the
time of Moses. Then they tampered with (h arrafa) that and changed
(baddala) [it], after hearing it and knowing it and understanding it.
T abar writes that in this verse God wanted to stress the gravity of the
lie22 which the Jews brought, after he had confirmed the proof (h ujja)
and demonstration (burhn) for them. Therefore, this verse notifies
Gods believing servants of the vanity of their hopes about the faith
of their surviving descendants in the truth, light, and guidance which
Muhammad had brought them. Here T abar provides a paraphrase or
amplification of the verse:
How do you expect these Jews to affirm your truthfulness (tasdq), when
you inform them by what you tell them of the reports from God of
something invisible which they have not witnessed or seen? Some of
them heard from God his word (kalm) and his command and his prohibition, then changed (baddala) it and tampered with (h arrafa) it and
denied ( jah ada) it. Those of their surviving descendants who are among
you are more likely to deny (jah ada) the truth you have brought them,
not having heard it from God but only from you. And it is more probable that they will misrepresent (h arrafa)23 what is in their books from the
characteristics (sifa) and description (nat) of your prophet Muhammad
(PBUH), and change (baddala) it knowingly, and deny ( jah ada) it and
lie (kadhaba), than those who were in direct contact with the word of
God (kalm allh) from God, exalted his praises, then tampered with
(h arrafa) it after they had understood it and known it, intentional doers
(taammada) of tampering (tah rf).24
The phrase they heard the word of God cannot mean they heard the
Torah, writes T abar, because both the tamperer (muh arraf) and the
non-tamperer among the Jews heard the Torah.25 Rather, specific Jews
who tampered with what they heard is in view in this verse. They had
been granted directly the hearing of the word of God Almighty, which
he did not grant to anyone other than the prophets and apostles. Then
21
J. Cooper for zhir al-tilwa. The Commentary on the Qurn, 403. Jmi al-Bayn,
Vol. II, 247.
22
23
Adangs translation in Muslim Writers, 228. Burton gives distort. The Corruption of the Scriptures, 100.
24
25
Cf. Cooper, The Commentary on the Qurn, 403, ftn.
123
they changed (baddala) and tampered with (h arrafa) what they heard
from that.26
At the end of his commentary on Q 2:75, T abar provides an important explanation of what he understands the verb h arrafa to mean. He
writes that the meaning of the scriptural phrase then they tampered
with it is then they changed (baddala) its meaning (manan).27 The
sense of h arrafa here is that they bend (mla) its direction and meaning (manan) to something else.28 T abar further explains that those
who tampered with the word of God fully understood that what they
were reporting was contrary to the correct interpretation, and knew
that by tampering with it they were uttering nonsense and lying.29
Therefore, concludes T abar, this verse is Gods report about the
boldness of the Jews to accuse, and their targeting of animosity (adwa)
to God and to his apostle Moses in earlier times. But the verse also
applies to a similar targeting of animosity by the descendents of those
earlier Jews toward God and his apostle Muhammad, out of injustice
(baghy) and envy (h asad).30
Q 4:46
T abar divides Q 4:46 up into seven segments, and under each he lists
the views of the interpreters on that part of the verse.31 He offers the
opinions of eight authorities in 23 ahdth, almost half of them attributed to Mujhid. His exegesis of the verse incorporates grammatical
explanation, gloss, definition, identification of unspecified pronouns,
attribution, short narrative, paraphrase and amplification.
He begins the passage with a long grammatical explanation of the
phrase, some of the Jews (hd). There are disparate views over
whether this phrase would be more correct with man inserted between
hd and the verb yuh arrifna. He gives the views of the Arabic experts
of Kfa and Basra, and discusses the common usage of Arabic speakers,
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 248. T abar adds here in more technical language: and
its interpretation (tawl) is and they change (ghayyara) it, and its original (asl ) is
derived from the deflection (inh irf) of the thing from its direction (jiha), which is
its inclination (mayl) from it to other than it.
28
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 249. Cf. Adang, Muslim Writers, 229; Saeed, The Charge
of Distortion, 423.
29
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 249. The last two words of this quote are participles of
batala and kadhaba.
30
31
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VIII, 430439.
26
27
124
chapter five
giving examples from poetry and from the Qurn. For example,
he uses Q 4:44, have you not seen those who were given a portion
from the book, to identify hd as the Jews. Later in his exegesis of
this verse, T abar offers a grammatical explanation of the expression
anzurn (regard us!).32
On the phrase, they tamper with the words, T abar offers a definition similar to the one he offered at Q 2:75. This phrase means
they change (baddala) their meaning (manan) and alter ( ghayyara)
them from their interpretation (tawl ).33 The exegete also gives an
explanation of out of their places, glossing it as out of their places
(amkin) and their meanings (wujh)34 He notes Mujhids view that
words (kalim) means the Torah, but says no more about this line of
interpretation.
The largest part of T abars explanation of Q 4:46 is taken up with
explaining the speeches of the Jews and the words they should have
said.35 According to his description, when the Jews say, We heard and
we disobey, they mean that they heard the command of Muhammad
and they will not obey (ta) him. When they say, Hear, may you
not hear, they mean they want Muhammad to listen to them, but
they will not submit to (qabila min) his command. The Jews used to
say rin36 in order to mock (istahzaa) Muhammad. By using this
expression they wanted to counteract (batta la) him and accuse him
of lying (kadhdhaba). For among the Jews, reports Qatda, there was
abomination (qabh).37
In this section, the exegete and his chosen authorities offer a range
of vocabulary to describe the tampering action which they envision.
T abar writes that the Jews used to say hear, may you not hear in
order to insult (sabba) the prophet of Islam and to hurt (dh) him

34
35
36
T abars exegesis of rin comes at Q 2:104. There he cites a large number of
traditions which attempt to explain this mysterious word. Some interpreters offer the
gloss khilfan (in contradiction); others gloss it arin samaka, which T abar understands to mean listen to us and we will listen to you; yet others offer khat (sin).
More relevant to the tampering theme is the way in which the traditions understand
the word to have been pronounced: in a mocking way (istihz), and in an insulting
way (sabb). Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 459467. Knstlinger discusses T abars explanation at Q 2:104 in Rin, 877879.
37
32
33
125
with abomination (qabh ). He cites Ibn Zayd to support the view that
the Jews used this expression as an insult (adhan), abusing (shatm) the
prophet and deriding (istihz) him.38 The action of tampering (tah rf)
with the word (kalm), according to Mujhid and al-H assan, is done
with their tongues; and religion is defamed through abuse (sabb) of
the prophet.39 Mujhid adds that that Jews meant to say that whatever
the prophet might say would not be acceptable (maqbl ) to them.40
T abars explanation of twisting with their tongues will be presented in a separate section below. The Jews would have done better, writes T abar, if after hearing the saying of Muhammad they had
pledged to obey his command. They should have accepted (qabila)
what he brought them from God. Their honesty and straight dealing
with the prophet of Islam would have been more proper for them.41
The last clause of the verse brings out an interesting expression from
T abar, a kind of paraphrase or amplification which incorporates narrative links from outside the verse. The meaning of, But God has
cursed them for their unbelief (kufr), so they do not believe (mana)
except for a few, is:
But God, blessed and almighty, humiliated these Jews, whose characteristics he described in this verse, and drove them away, and removed
them from good sense. They sold the truth for their unbelief, meaning by
their rejection (juh d) of the prophethood of his prophet Muhammad
(PBUH), and what he brought to them from his Lord of guidance and
clear proofs. And so they do not believe, except a few. He says: they do
not believe (saddaqa) in Muhammad (PBUH) and what he brought to
them from his Lord, and they do not acknowledge (qarra) his prophethood except a few. He says: they do not believe (saddaqa) in the truth
which you brought them, O Muhammad, except a little faith.42
In this closing paraphrase, the exegetes concern is with the response

of the Jews to the prophet of Islam. It is their inappropriate response
to the truth which T abar understands to have brought Gods curse
upon them. The frequency of verbs and expressions of response earlier in the passage serves further to highlight this theme. Indeed this

40
Cf. Ambros, Hre, ohne zu hren, 17.
41
42
38
39
126
chapter five
theme seems to give coherence to T abars explanation of the tampering action in the verse.
Q 5:13
For his exegesis of Q 5:13, T abar divides the verse up into six segments. He passes on the opinions of six authorities in some 12 traditions.43 The commentary includes grammatical explanations of
the expression fa-bim early in the verse44 and treachery (khina)
later on.45 It also includes a detailed discussion of the correct reading (qira) for qsiyatan in the phrase we made their hearts hard.46
More importantly for the theme of this study, the passage contains
an accusation of falsification of the Torah. It closes by noting a claim
of abrogation of the command to forgivesimilar to what Muqtil
made, except that T abar attributes the claim to Qatda.
T abar begins his exegesis with a strong opening statement on the
covenant referred to at the beginning of the verse.47 He understands
that through this verse God is telling Muhammad not to be surprised
when the Jews cause anxiety (hamma), spread out their hands to him
and his companions, break the covenant which is between the prophet
and them, and act treacherously (ghadara). That is only to be expected,
given the record of their ancestors with the covenant which God made
with them in the past. The exegete catalogues some of the kindnesses
which God showed to the Children of Israel: I sent from them 12 chiefs
who were chosen from all of them, in order to detect information
about the giants, and I promised to help them, and I gave them their
land as an inheritance, and their homes and their possessions, after
showing them the crossing and the signs in the destruction of Pharaoh
and his people in the sea, and parting the sea for them, and the walking of the crossing. But the Jews broke the covenant which they had
bound with God, so he cursed them. If this is what the best Jews did
in spite of Gods kindness to them, asks T abar, why be surprised if
their lowly people do the same thing?48

Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 125. Arberry renders it so for.
45
46
47
48
43
44
127
T abar then advances an important interpretation of the phrase,

They tamper with the words out of their places:49
[God says]: We hardened the hearts of these who broke our covenants
from the Children of Israel, removing from them the good, taking away
from them success. They do not believe, and they are not rightly guided,
and God certainly removed success and faith from their hearts. They
tampered with (h arrafa) the word (kalm) of their Lord which he sent
down upon their prophet Moses (PBUH), and it is the Torah. So they
changed (baddala) it and wrote with their hands other than what God,
exalted and powerful, sent down upon their prophet. They said to the
ignorant of the people, This is that word (kalm) of God which he sent
down upon his prophet Moses(PBUH)and the Torah which he
revealed to him. And this characterized the Jews in the centuries after
Moses, some of whom reached the era of our prophet Muhammad50
(PBUH). But God...included them among those about whom he initiated the report from the time of Moses, since they were their descendents, and followed their way in the lie (kadhib) against God, and the
falsehood ( firya) against him, and the breaking of the covenants, which
he made with them in the Torah.
In this passage, T abar indicates an action of tampering with the Torah

itself. He specifies that the Jews changed the text and wrote something
of their own invention. Then they tried to pass off this new writing as
the revelation which God gave to Moses. The exegete says that this
tampering action continued from the period after Moses up to the
time of Muhammad. He then follows up this long passage with a tradition from Ibn Abbs that the words indicated in the verse mean
the legal punishments (h udd)51 of God in the Torah.52
T abars explanation of the phrase, and they have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded of, will be presented in a separate
section below. On the phrase, and thou wilt never cease to light
upon some act of treachery on their part, except a few of them, the
exegete finds both a general description and a specific situation. He

This sentence is: wa hdha min sifati l-qurn allat knat bada Ms mina
l-Yahd mimman adraka badahum asra nabiyyina Muh ammad. Jmi al-Bayn,
Vol. X, 129. Burtons translation of the whole clause: That conduct went on from
the period after Moses up to the time of Muhammad. The Corruption of the Scriptures, 102.
51
Burton, The Corruption of the Scriptures, 102: penal provisions. Saeed, The
Charge of Distortion, 425: punishments specified.
52
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 129 (trad. 11586).
49
50
128
chapter five
writes that the way in which the Jews broke their covenant with God
demonstrates in general their perfidy ( ghadr) and their faithlessness
(khiyna). T abar cites Qatda to the effect that the treachery of
the Jews referred to in this verse is their faithlessness and falsehood
(kadhib) and immorality ( fajr).
But there was a particular event in the life of Muhammad when,
after he approached the Jewish tribe Ban Nadr, they planned to
murder him and his companions.53 T abar agrees with Mujhid and
Ikrima in connecting the treachery of the verse with the day the
prophet entered their walls.54 The prophet had wanted to ask the
Jews for help concerning the blood money (diya) of the Amar tribe,
but on the way God warned him of the Jewish tendency to cause him
trouble.55
The commentary on Q 5:13 ends with a discussion of the divine
command to pardon and forgive the Jews for their treachery. T abar
paraphrases this part of the verse: Pardon, O Muhammad, these Jews
who intend murder in spreading out their hands to you and to your
companions; and forgive them their crimes, giving up the objection to
their reprehensible behavior. I love whoever does good by pardoning
and forgiving the one who does evil to him.56 The exegete notes the
tradition from Qatda that this command to forgive was subsequently
abrogated. Yes, said Qatda, the prophet of Islam was to pardon and
forgive as long as the command to fight had not been given. But then
Q 9:29 superseded the earlier command: Fight those who do not
believe in God and the last day and do not forbid what God and his
apostle have forbiddensuch men as practice not the religion of truth,
being of those who have been given the Bookuntil they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled. Those intended here are the
People of the Book, said Qatda. So God, exalted his praise, commanded his prophet (PBUH) that he fight them, until they surrender
(aslama), or settle down (qarra) through jizya.57

Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 1312 (trads. 1159092).
55
56
57
53
54
129
Q 5:41
On Q 5:41, T abar offers a very long passage of commentary, chock full
of fascinating narrative.58 He divides the verse into five sections for his
exegesis. He passes on 21 traditions which he attributes to 10 authorities, some of them substantial narratives. He includes gloss, identification of unspecified pronouns, attribution, paraphrase, amplification
of scriptural phrases, definition, grammatical explanations, and narrative. The narratives, though long and detailed, will be described as fully
as possible because of their importance in determining what T abar
and his chosen authorities have in mind for the tampering action in
this verse.
The exegete notes right at the start of his comments that the interpreters of the Qurn have disagreed on who is meant by this verse.
Some of the interpreters say that this came down concerning Ab
Lubba ibn Abd al-Mandhar. When the prophet of Islam was besieging the Jewish tribe Ban Qurayza, Ab Lubba pronounced a command of slaughter upon them. Other interpreters say that this verse
came down concerning an anonymous Jew who asked his ally from the
Muslims for a ruling from Muhammad. This Jew had killed another
Jew and wanted to know what judgment the prophet of Islam would
render concerning his crime. The murderer told his Muslim acquaintance that if the prophet gave a judgment of paying blood money,
he would accept it. But if the prophet ruled capital punishment, he
wouldnt even bring the case before him. This second interpretation
emerges again later on in T abars commentary through a tradition
attributed to Qatda.
A third group of interpreters claim, however, that the occasion
of revelation for Q 5:41 was the Jew Abd Allh ibn Sriy and how
he apostatized after becoming a Muslim.59 This third interpretation
claims the bulk of the material provided by T abar in explanation of
Q 5:41.
The first narrative which T abar offers to support the third interpretation is a tradition attributed to Ab Hurayra (Ibn Ishq is mentioned in the chain of transmission):60 The religious leaders of the Jews
were gathered in the house of study when Muhammad had come to

60
58
59
130
chapter five
Madna. A married man and a married woman from the Jews had
committed adultery. The religious leaders decided to bring this man
and woman to Muhammad and ask him for a judgment on their act of
adultery. In this way they appointed Muhammad arbitrator (h akam)
over the two. They said among themselves, If he judges their deed
with tah mm, then obey himfor in that case he is only a secular
leader (malik). Tah mm is explained as flogging the guilty with a
whip, blackening their faces, seating them upon donkeys, and turning
their faces toward the rear of the donkeys. But if he gives a sentence
of stoning, then beware of him, because he will steal (salaba) what is
in your hands. So they approached the prophet of Islam and said, O
Muhammad, this married man committed adultery with this married
woman. Pass judgment on the two. We have appointed you as arbitrator over them. Muhammad then proceeded to the house of study
(midrs) where the Jewish religious leaders were. He addressed them,
O community of the Jews, bring out to me your scholars. So they
brought out Abd Allh ibn Sriy, known as the one-eyed. Some
of the Ban Qurayza said that they also brought out Ab Ysir ibn
Akhtab and Wahb ibn Yahdha. The religious leaders said, These
are our scholars. So Muhammad questioned them until they disclosed concerning Ibn Sriy, This is the most knowledgeable one
in the Torah who remains. The prophet of Islam then coaxed Ibn
Suriy, a young man known for establishing prescriptions for the Jews.
Muhammad pressed the question upon him,61 saying, O Ibn Sriy,
I adjure you by God, and remind you of him whose hands are upon
Ban Isrl: Do you know that God gave a sentence of stoning for
whoever commits adultery, in the Torah? Ibn Sriy answered, By
God yes!62 By God, O Ab al-Qsim, they certainly know that you
are a sent prophet, but they envy (h asada) you. So the prophet of
Islam gave the command concerning them, and the two were stoned
beside the door of his mosque among the Ban Uthmn ibn Ghlib
ibn al-Najjr. Then Ibn Sriy disbelieved (kafara) after that, so God
sent down, O Messenger, let them not grieve thee that vie with one
another in unbelief, such men as say with their mouths, We believe
but their hearts believe not.63
alazza . The editor suggests a gloss of alah h a (importune, pester, urge). Jmi
al-Bayn, Vol. X, 304 n. 2.
62
allhumma naam.
63
61
131
T abar immediately continues his exegesis with a second narrative,

a tradition attributed to al-Bar ibn zab:64 A Jew who had been
blackened and flogged passed by the prophet of Islam. The prophet
called one of the Jewish scholars and asked him, Do you find the
legal punishment (h add) of adultery among you thus? The scholar
answered, Yes. But Muhammad persisted with the scholar, Then
I adjure you by him who sent down the Torah upon Moses, do you
find the legal punishment of adultery among you thus? This time the
scholar answered, No, then added, and if you had not adjured me
in this way, I would not have told yourather, it is stoning. The
Jewish scholar explained that because of the frequent occurrence of
adultery among their nobility, the Jews had given up (taraka) the sentence of stoning. They put another punishment in the place (makn)
of stoning, that is blackening and flogging. In response Muhammad
declared, O God, I am the first to revive your command, since they
put it to death.
Without a break, T abar passes on a third narrative, a tradition again
attributed to Ab Hurayra:65 A Jewish man came to Muhammad and
indicated that one of the Jews had committed adultery. The Jews said
among themselves: If this prophet is sent, you know that stoning is an
obligation ( fard) upon you in the Torah, but you concealed (katama)
it, and you agreed amongst yourselves about its punishment. Now we
will ask this prophet, and if he gives us a legal ruling of what is an
obligation upon us concerning stoning in the Torah, we gave that up
(taraka). Then they approached the prophet of Islam and said, O
Ab al-Qsim, a man of ours has committed adultery. What punishment would you prescribe? Muhammad did not reply to them, but
rather he stood up and proceeded immediately to the Jews house of
study. He found them studying the Torah carefully (tadrasa) together
in the house of al-midrs. He appealed to them, O assembly of the
Jews. I adjure you by God who sent down the Torah upon Moses, what
do you find (wajada impf.) in the Torah concerning the punishment
for adultery? They said, We find blackening and flogging. But their
rabbi at one side of the room kept quiet. When the prophet of Islam
noticed his silence, he questioned the rabbi closely. The rabbi said, By
God, since you adjure us, we find their sentence to be stoning.

64
65
132
chapter five
Muhammad took the opportunity to ask the rabbi, Who was the
first to make concessions (tarakhkhasa) for you in the command
(amr) of God? The rabbi explained that once a Jewish king named
Ibn Amm had committed adultery, but was not stoned. Then later,
when a commoner committed adultery, the king wanted to stone him.
But the people insisted that the commoner not be stoned until the king
was also stoned. Then they agreed amongst themselves on a punishment short of stoning, and they gave up (taraka) stoning. In response
the prophet of Islam declared, I impose (qad) what is in the Torah.66
According to this tradition, this was the occasion of revelation for the
entire passage Q 5:4144.67
After relating these three long narratives, T abar gives his ruling on
which of the interpretations he favors.68 It is clear that a people from
the hypocrites is in view, he writes. Yes, it is conceivable that Ab
Lubba or others still could be meant by this verse. But since Ab
Hurayra and al-Bar ibn ribboth companions of the messenger of
Godwent for the third option, the correct interpretation would be
that the verse came down concerning Abd Allh ibn Sriy.
In summing up this interpretation, T abar offers a characterization of the people whom he understands to be guilty of the tampering action. His amplification of the first part of the verse includes the
following:
O apostle, let them not grieve you who vie with one another in rejection (juh d) of your prophethood, and the denial (takdhb) that you
are my prophet, from those who said, We believe (saddaqa) in you, O
Muhammad, that you are Gods delegated apostle, and we know that
for certain, through our discovery (wujd) of your description (sifa) in
our book.69
T abar supports this characterization by repeating the confession made

to the prophet of Islam by Ibn Sriy: By God, O Ab al-Qsim, they
definitely know that you are the sent prophet, but they envy (h asada)
you. He adds that though these words passed the lips of Ibn Sriy,
they did not match what was in his heart. Thus, T abar understands
66
Burton cites the specification of the Torah as an example of tayn, seeing this as
an advance on traditions about Muhammad judging according to the book of God.
67
68
69
133
that in this verse God informed Muhammad of what was hidden in

the conscience of Ibn Sriy.
The exegete continues to characterize the Jews in glosses and
paraphrases throughout his explanation of this verse. On the Jews
who listen to falsehood, listen to other folk, who have not come to
thee, T abar finds the source of grief to be the Jews denial (takdhb
and juh d) of the prophethood of Muhammad. He writes that God
describes the blameworthy (dhamm) characteristics of the Jews thus:70
their deeds are evil (rad); they regard the prohibited as lawful; their
foods are evil and their eating places vile (dan); they accept bribes
and take property illegally (suh t). In fact, these Jews are a people of
falsehood (ifk) and lying (kadhib) against God, and tampering with his
book.71 Further on in his exegesis, T abar appears to characterize the
Jews as fornicators (bghn).72
The verse itself indicates that it is the Jews who listen to falsehood,
listen to other folk, who have not come to thee. However, who are the
two groups implied by the clause? T abars authorities do not agree,73
but he favors the view that it is the Jews of Fadak who do not come
directly to the messenger for a ruling, and the Jews of Madna are the
other folk whom the Jews of Fadak listen to instead.74
At this point T abar gives more material on the process whereby the
Jews of the past gave up the stoning penalty, attributed to al-Sudd.75
He writes that God had sent down upon the Children of Israel the
command, When anyone of you commits adultery, stone him. The
Jews did not abandon (zla) this judgment until one of their nobles
committed adultery. The narrative then follows the pattern of the second and third narratives above. But in this version, the Jews decide that
Gods ruling on adultery is unbearable, and they agree to modify
(aslah a) it. The adulterous womans name is given here as Busra, and
it is her father who sends someone to ask the prophet of Islam for a
ruling. This father also candidly reveals misgivings about the encounter

72
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 313. bghn can also mean wrongdoers, oppressors or
committers of outrage.
73
74
75
70
71
134
chapter five
with Muhammad: We fear that he may expose us, and tell us what
we do.76
On the clause, they tamper with the words out of their places,
T abar provides another important explanation of his understanding
of the meaning of h arrafa, to supplement what he wrote about this
phrase at Q 2:75 and 4:46:
These listeners to the lie tamper with (h arrafa)Jewish listeners to other
folk who do not come to youal-kalim. Their tah rf was this: their
changing (taghyr) the judgment (h ukm) of God, almighty his mention,
which he sent down in the Torah concerning married women and married men (muh si na) of adultery by stoning, to flogging and blackening.
So he said,...they tamper with the words, meaning: these Jews; and
the meaning: the judgment (h ukm) of the words (kalim).77
In other words, T abar identifies the object of the tampering action as

the judgment of the words.78 The exegete also provides an explanation for the phrase, from its places. He writes that this means, after
God had put them into context.79 As for the words min bad in the
phrase from (min bad) its places, this can be taken to mean out
of (an) its placeswhich is the wording in Q 4:46 and 5:13. T abar
offers an example to support this reading. He writes that when anyone
says, I came to you out of (an) my leisure from the activity, they
really intend, after (bad) my leisure from the activity.80
T abar includes yet another account of the same narrative situation which he related earlier in his exegesisthis time triggered by the
phrase, If he gives you this, then take it, and if he does not give it,
then beware.81 He attributes the tradition to Ibn Abbs:
A woman from the Jews committed adultery. God had given a judgment in the Torah to punish adultery with stoning. But the Jews did
not want (nafisa) to stone her, so they said, Hurry to Muhammad.
It might be that there will be with him concession (rukhsa). If there
is concession, then accept it. So they went to the prophet of Islam
78
Burtons rendering is, God contents Himself with saying, they alter words since
His listeners will realise that He means, they distort [the ruling conveyed by] the
words. The Corruption of the Scriptures, 102.
79
Burtons translation in The Corruption of the Scriptures, 102. Literally after
God placed that its places. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 313.
80
81
76
77
135
and asked him, O Ab l-Qsim, if one of our women commits adultery, what do you say concerning her? The prophet answered, What
is the sentence (h ukm) of God on adultery in the Torah? The Jews
said, Never mind the Torah;82 we want to know what you say. The
prophet of Islam said, Bring me your scholars in the Torah, which
was sent down upon Moses. Then he adjured them, By him who
saved you from the people of Pharaoh, and by him who parted the
sea, and saved you and drowned the people of Pharaoh, tell me: What
is the judgment of God in the Torah concerning adultery? They said,
His sentence is stoning. So the prophet of Islam pronounced this
very ruling for the Jewish adulteress, and she was stoned.
Near the end of his exegesis of Q 5:41, T abar offers an alternate
scenario in explanation of the meaning of the verse, from a tradition
attributed to Qatda. The story is about retaliation rights between the
Jewish tribes of Ban Nadr and Ban Qurayza.83 Whenever the Ban
Nadr killed someone from the Ban Qurayza, they did not allow the
Ban Qurayza to retaliate, but rather only gave them blood money. This
was because of what the Ban Nadr considered as their superiority
over the Ban Qurayza in nobility. But when the Ban Qurayza killed
someone from the Ban Nadr, the Ban Nadr would accept nothing
less than retaliation. When the prophet of Islam arrived in Madna,
the Ban Nadr wanted to present just such a case to Muhammad.
However, one of the hypocrites explained to them that if the one they
had killed had been killed with premeditation, the prophet of Islam
would inevitably award equal right of retaliation.84 If he accepts blood
money from you, take it, advised the man. but if not, be on your
guard about him.
T abar gives one last tradition to explain what his various authorities understand the tampering action in the verse to be. According to a
saying attributed to Ibn Zayd, they tamper with the words out of their
places means they do not impose (wadaa) what God sent down.85
However, the exegete continues up to the end to highlight the
character of the tamperers. In his comments on Whomsoever God
82
Burtons translation in The Corruption of the Scriptures, 102. Literally, We
called from the Torah.
83
84
This expression from Burton, The Corruption of the Scriptures, 104. Cf. idem.,
85
136
chapter five
desires to try, you cannot avail him anything with God, T abar for a
third time specifies the sin of the Jews and hypocrites as their denial
( juh d) of the prophethood of Muhammad.86 Further, Those whose
hearts God desired not to purify, are polluted by the filth (danas) of
unbelief and the stain (wasakh) of shirk. For such people, writes the
exegete, God desires only degradation (khizy) in this worldthat is
humiliation (dhull) and despicableness (hawn)and in the world to
come the eternal chastisement of hell.87
Q 2:59 and 7:162
T abars interpretation of Q2:59 is a continuation of his exegesis of
the preceding verse and the narrative situation set up there. God commanded the Children of Israel to pronounce a certain word when they
entered a town (Q 2:58). At Q 2:59, T abars exegesis is mainly taken
up with the saying and entering posture which the Children of Israel
substituted in place of what God had commanded them.88
The exegete immediately glosses baddala with ghayyara, and writes
that this verse is concerned with the tabdl and taghyr which the Children of Israel committed. Then he offers 17 traditions which attempt
to identify the substitution. The first of these traditions is traced back
to Muhammad.89 Here the Children of Israel entered the gate crawling
on their backsides instead of bowing prostrate. And instead of saying
h itta as they were commanded, they said h ibba f shara, seeds on a
piece of hair.90 Other traditions assert that the substituted expression
was wheat on a piece of hair (h inta f shara), or even red wheat.
The most elaborate description of the Jewish saying is in a tradition
attributed to Ibn Masd.91 It purports to give a transliteration of the
actual sounds the Children of Israel made, hat samq y azba hazb,
because it then gives its meaning in Arabic: a grain of red wheat
pierced with a black hair. Variations of the improper posture include
entering on the backside while shielding the face.92

88
89
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 112 (trad. 1019).
90
91
92
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 115 (trads. 1030, 1031).
86
87
137
T abars traditions also add some explanations to qualify the substitution action. When they said h inta, they were mocking (istahzaa).93
A tradition attributed to Ibn Zayd specifies that they were mocking
Moses.94 Later in his exegesis of the verse, T abar characterizes the
action of the Children of Israel as disobedience (masiya).95
At Q 7:1612, T abar again highlights the Children of Israels
disobedience (isyn) of Moses.96 In explaining this second occurrence of the verses, the exegete does not repeat the traditions he gave
earlier, but rather simply supplies one possibility for the substituted
sayingwheat on a piece of hairand refers the reader to his citations at Q 2:59.97 Here again ghayyara is given as a gloss for baddala
and explained as an action of verbal substitution. In neither passage
does T abar mention the Torah or any other book.
Q 2:211
At Q 2:211, the scriptural object of the verb baddala is Gods blessing. T abar interprets blessing as Islam, and what he required from
the law of his religion.98 To change Gods blessing means to alter
(ghayyara) what God covenanted with the Children of Israel concerning Islam, and its practice and the entrance into it. T abar understands
the covenant with the Jews to include information about the prophet of
Islam and what he brought, that he is Gods prophet and apostle. This
covenant was in the book of the Children of Israel. But the response
of the Jews was that they disbelieved (kafara) in all of this.99
In making this interpretation, T abar seems to have followed a series
of traditions which he cites about the meaning of baddala. Traditions
attributed to Mujhid, al-Sudd and al-Rab all interpret change Gods
blessing as to disbelieve in it.100 T abar also includes in this short
passage his own paraphrase of the verses challenge to the Children
of Israel: O you who believe in the Torah, and trust in it. Come into
Islam one and all!101
95
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 116, 119.
96
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. XIII, 178.
97
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. XIII, 179.
98
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. IV, 272.
99
100
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. IV, 273 (trads. 4042, 4044 and 4045).
101
93
94
138
chapter five
Analysis: Emphasis on Failure to Apply the Torah

T abar offers a joyful abundance of material in explanation of the
h arrafa and baddala verses. In comparison to Muqtil, he develops the
meaning of the verses in a much wider variety of ways. Like Muqtil,
T abar provides gloss or substitution for terms within the verse, and
offers narration of actions which are to explain the words of scripture. A major difference, however, is the multiplicity of perspectives
which T abar supplies in the form of traditions attributed to his chosen authorities. The exegete also gives significant definitions of terms
central to this study, stopping to tender grammatical or etymological
suggestions which Muqtil evidently passed over. T abar sets up relevant scriptural verbs in parallel or in association with other verbs,
and offers yet further information through the objects he attaches to
key verbs.
Verbal Changes of Interpretation
On Q 2:75, T abar takes a stand with the interpreters who understand
the verse to refer to the account of the Children of Israel who asked to
see God at the time of Moses. He does indeed relay Ibn Zayds story
about two books, but when he states his preference, he makes an
argument against that story developing the meaning of h arrafa in the
verse. In Q 2:75, kalm Allh for T abar is not the Torah, and though
he does list this opinion early on, he later explicitly rejects this option.
The description of the tampering action itself differs from the story
which Muqtil told in that the group of Jews concerned reported to
the people something which contradicted what God had commanded.
In any case, the tampering action for T abar is not the alteration of a
text, but rather the perversion of the speech of God which a group of
Israelites heard at the time of Moses.
T abar also provides important etymological information about his
understanding of the meaning of the verb h arrafa. He uses strong
verbs of alteration (baddala, ghayyara) in his definition, but says that
the change which took place was in the meaning and interpretation of
the words of God. He also offers a pair of synonyms in his definition:
h arrafa is explained by mla, and mayl renders inh irf.
There is therefore no suggestion here that the verse refers to a corrupted text of scripture, or that the verbal tampering of a group of Jews
at the time of Moses entered into the text which resulted from Gods
revelation to Moses. However, T abar does indeed take full advantage
139
of the Moses-era story to make a case for the obstinate response of the
Jews at the time of Muhammad. He strongly suggests that if a group
of Jews in Moses time heard the word of God himself and deliberately
changed it, the Jews of Madna would be even more likely to deny the
preaching of the prophet of Islam. Even beyond that, they will likely
be ready to tamper with the material in their scripture which refers to
Muhammad.
In casting this aspersion, T abar seems to place h arrafa in parallel
with the verb baddala as well as with verbs of response like jah ada
and kadhdhaba. This seems to indicate an elasticity in the meaning of
both h arrafa and baddala. To this may be added the gloss of baddala
as ghayyara at Q 2:211, along with its multiple gloss there as kafara.
These two verbs would seem to be able to encompass a variety of
actions which could be included in the larger concept of tampering.
Certainly at Q 2:59, 2:75 and 2:211 T abar does not connect any of the
verbs of alteration with textual falsification.
T abars interpretation of baddala at Q 2:59 and 7:162 is similar
to his understanding of h arrafa at Q 2:75 in the sense that he understands the tampering action in both baddala verses to be that of verbal
distortion.102 And at Q 2:211, his understanding of baddala is similar
to Muqtils exegesis of unbelief in Muhammad.103 This points toward
meanings of baddala and h arrafa which are related to the response of
the Jews to the prophet of Islam.
A Twist of the Tongue
On Q 4:46, T abar develops the meaning of the verse largely with reference to the speech of certain Jews which seems to be alluded to in
the verse itself. He reinforces the definition of h arrafa which he gave
at Q 2:75, that the change (baddala, ghayyara) which is taking place
is in the meaning and interpretation.104 He also provides a helpful
gloss for out of their places, explaining it with an alternate word for
Adang, Muslim Writers, 228.

Burton seems to claim that when T abar writes at Q 2:211 that the Jews must
not alter the covenant concerning Muhammad in their book, the exegete is referring
to an act of textual falsification: At this point, kitmn has finally been transmuted
into outright tah rf. The Corruption of the Scriptures, 105. But as we have seen, the
context in the commentary emphasizes unbelief instead. The mistake is thinking that
verbs of alteration always indicate material change.
104
Saeed, The Charge of Distortion, 424.
102
103
140
chapter five
places and with meanings. T abar notes the opinion of Mujhid

that the locus of tampering is the Torah, but he does not pursue this
line of thought. Instead, he proceeds to explain a verbal action of
tampering.
That action, the speech of some Jews, is explained by a series of
glosses, often supplied by the exegetes selected traditions. Along with
the glosses come attributions of motive on the part of the Jews. The
Jews make a deliberate choice, after hearing the command of the
prophet of Islam, not to obey him. They insult and abuse him. They
mock Muhammad and slander his religion. They oppose him and give
the lie to him.
In all of this, the Jews are twisting with their tongues. The tampering action which T abar envisions is a movement with their tongues
to change meaning and show disdain for the truth of the prophet.
The exegete further develops this picture with his explanation of what
would have been more appropriate for the Jews to say and do. The Jews
should have chosen to obey the command of Muhammad, and should
have accepted what he brought to them as from God. In his final summing up of the thrust of the verse, T abar asserts that the Jews have
earned Gods curse by their denial or rejection of the prophethood of
Muhammad. The prophet brought them guidance and clear proofs,
but most of the Jews chose to neither believe in nor acknowledge his
prophethood.
The richness of the vocabulary of response in this passage creates
a strong impression that T abar found the meaning of h arrafa here
to be the way the Jews of Madna spoke with the prophet of Islam.
He offers three verbs for to insult or to mock (sabba, dh and
istahzaa) along with their matching nouns (sabb, adhan and istihz).
He further gives two nouns of abuse and disdain (shatm and istikhff).
To characterize the actions of the Jews he uses two strongly negative terms (makrh and qabha). The term juh d (rejection) appears
in his paraphrase to signify the response of the Jews to the prophethood of Muhammad. The proper response would have been to accept
(qabila) his authority and to acknowledge (aqarra) his prophethood.
The exegete is clearly concerned to safeguard the respect which, in
his view, the prophet deserves. This concentration of expressions of
response may also be taken as an indication of a larger concern for
T abar beyond the tampering motifwhich may in turn influence his
development of the motif.
141
They wrote something else with their hands

Out of his four commentary passages on the h arrafa verses, T abar
makes his strongest sustained accusation of the alteration of a text of
scripture in his exegesis of Q 5:13. He sees this tampering action as
part of a larger scenario of Jewish faithlessness both to the covenant
which God had made with them, and to the agreements they had with
the Muslims.
T abar writes that Jewish leaders changed the Torah and wrote
with their hands something other than what God had revealed. They
then passed this new writing off as the very word of God which he
had revealed to Moses. The wording of T abars charge that the Jews
wrote something which they pretended was the Torah is identical
to the scriptural wording of Q 2:79, and resembles the wording of
Q 3:78. The exegete claims that this was the practice of the Jews in the
period after Moses and up to the time of the prophet of Islam. T abar
cites no other authority for this interpretation, but rather appears to
give these views as his own. Here he makes no mention of changing
interpretation or verbal word-play.105 Later he brings in a tradition
from Ibn Abbs to specify that the words which the Jews tampered
with...out of their places were the legal punishments of God in the
Torah.
If this is an accusation of falsification of the Torah, it is not clear
why T abar chooses to make this charge only at Q 5:13, when the same
phrase, tampering with words out of their places also appears at
Q 4:46 and 5:41. At 4:46 he found the tampering action to be with
the tongue. At Q 5:41 he portrays the tampering action as a failure to
enforce a Torah command. He gives no indication in those passages
of the accusation of textual alteration.
105
However, Abdullah Saeed writes that T abar seems to understand the change
of text to be through false interpretations, writing down those interpretations, and
then claiming they are from God. If there is the possibility of tampering with either
text or meaning at Q 5:13, Saeed suggests that the commentary leans toward change
of meaning in the form of attributing false interpretations to God. The Charge of
Distortion, 425.
142
chapter five
Relaxing the Application of a Torah Command

The four extended narratives which T abar offers in his exegesis of
Q 5:41 provide an understanding of what he has in mind for the tampering action referred to in the verse. He presents the same basic story
which Muqtil offered, but he adds information about the method of
the Jewish action and the reasons for it. Though the exegete makes
note of two other possibilities for the occasion of revelation of the
verse, he indicates his preference for the stoning narrative both explicitly and by the abundance of material he devotes to it.
The first narrative establishes the basic outlines of the tampering
action. The Jewish religious leaders are hoping for a lenient sentence on
a couple from their midst who have committed adultery. They appoint
Muhammad as an arbitrator, but at the same time create a test of his
true status. Muhammad outwits the religious leaders by determining
the identity of their best Torah scholar, and by swearing that scholar
to honesty. The scholar, Ibn Sriy, affirms the sentence of stoning on
adultery contained in the Torah. He adds that the Jews know about the
status of Muhammad, that he is a prophet sent by God, but they wont
acknowledge the truth because they envy him. The tampering action in
this story is that though the punishment for adultery is clearly spelled
out in the Torah, the Jewish religious leaders do not disclose it and do
not want to apply it.
The second narrative dispenses with the test of prophethood and
the religious leadership, but brings in an unnamed Jewish scholar
for questioning. This scholar too will not tell the truth about the
punishment for adultery until he is adjured by his God. But when
Muhammad adjures him, he not only affirms the stoning penalty but
explains how a different sentence came to be applied. The frequency of
adultery among the Jewish nobility led the people to give up the harsh
sentence. They agreed to put a different punishment in the place of
stoning, and eventually came to apply a more lenient sentence to noble
and common adulterers alike. The exclamation of Muhammad in this
account is instructive: he claims to be the first to revive a Torah command which the Jews have stopped applying. The tampering action in
this narrative is that the Jews give up the application of the sentence
for adultery specified in the Torah, and that they replace it with their
own sentence.
The third narrative includes the test of prophethood and gives the
added information that the Jewsprior to approaching Muhammad
143
were fully aware of the stoning punishment in the Torah, but chose to
conceal the verse and to give up its application. In place of Ibn Sriy
is the silent rabbi at the side of the Jewish house of study. Only this
single Jew responds to the adjuration of Muhammad and admits that
they find the sentence of stoning in the Torah. The prophet of Islam
asks for the history of the relaxation of this obligation, and learns that
it started with the adultery of a specific king of the Jews. Because the
king was not stoned, the sentence could not be applied to a common
adulterer either, and so the Jews agreed among themselves on a more
lenient punishment. After hearing this history, Muhammad claims to
be imposing a penalty that is in the Torah. The tampering action in
this narrative is that the Jews conceal what they know is in the Torah,
relax the application of the stoning penalty, agree on another sentence
in its place, and give up the Torah punishment.
The fourth narrative also does away with the test of prophethood,
and simply presents the Jews as wanting Muhammad to give a more
lenient judgment than stoning. An interesting difference here is that
only a woman is taken in adultery. The account indicates at the start
that God had given the sentence of stoning in the Torah. When the
prophet of Islam asks the Jews about this Torah ruling, they want to
avoid that matter and to rather hear his own judgment. But Muhammad
summons the scholars in the Torah and asks them about the ruling.
They answer without prevaricating that Gods ruling is stoning. The
tampering action in this account is that though the ruling on adultery
is clear from the Torah, the Jews do not want to apply it. They want
leniency and that is why they involve the prophet of Islam. They want
to bypass what they already know from the Torah.
A striking feature of all of these traditions is that they rely for their
narrative dynamic on the existence of a character who knows the Torah
well. It may be Ibn Sriy in particular, the greatest Torah scholar
left; it may be the honest rabbi at the side of the study house; it may
be an unnamed scholar whom Muhammad summons to the scene;
or it may even be a group of Jewish scholars. In all four accounts,
it is the Jewish scholar who is the source of the affirmation that the
punishment for adultery in the Torah is stoning. There is no Gabriel
in these narratives to whisper into the ear of the prophet of Islam.
Rather, the prophet asks the Torah scholar, what do you find in the
Torah? regarding the punishment for adultery, and then persists in
extracting an honest reply. Indeed, in terms of the narrative, the only
144
chapter five
way to confirm that the Torah contains the stoning punishment is to

find out from a Torah scholar.
The straightforward conclusion to draw from this is that the tampering action which T abar and his traditions envisioned involves an
intact Torah and a scholar who knows its contents well. The exegete
does not make an explicit statement about the condition of the Torah
one way or another. In other parts of his commentary he has referred
to the Jews writing a kitb other than the Torah, or has passed on
accusations of adding to and subtracting from the Torah. But at Q 5:41
at least, the narrative pull of these four stories provides the main clue
for the meaning of tah rf. The variety of verbs which the exegete and
his traditions employ to characterize the tampering action in relation
to the stoning punishment is striking: to give up (taraka),106 make concessions (tarakhkhasa),107 abandon (zla),108 ameliorate (aslah a)109 and
desist (nafisa).110
The punch line of these accounts is that the prophet of Islam passes
a test of prophethood which the Jews set up for him. In two of the
accounts, Muhammad triumphantly proclaims that he is reviving a
Torah command. In order for the narrative to gather to its conclusion
of the authority of the prophet of Islam, there must come a confirmation that the judgment he gives matches the judgment of the Torah.
That comes in these accounts from a Jewish scholar who knows what
is in the Torah at hand.
Other parts of T abars exegesis of Q 5:41 appear to confirm this
conclusion. In his amplification of the phrase they tamper with words
from their places, the exegete specifies that the change took place in
the judgment or sentence of the words which God revealed in the
Torah. T abar appears to be making a distinction between the words
of the Torah and the application of the stoning punishment. He gives
no indication that he understands a change in the words of the Torah
text itself.111 Rather, a concept of an intact text would match the narrative element that the Jews in the past abandoned the application of
a punishment they considered to be too harsh.

108
109
110
111
106
107
145
In other paraphrases, the exegete appears to devote his attention to

characterizing the Jews in their actions of the past and in their present
response to the prophet of Islam. His vocabulary highlights their rejection and denial of the prophethood of Muhammad, based on envy.
Along with this T abar offers a variety of pejorative epithets aiming
to portray the Jews as dishonest, wicked, immoral and filthy. These
extra pieces seem to support the narrative thrust of the four stoning
accounts. The failure of the Jews to apply a judgment of God which
they know is in the book which he has revealed is just one more proof
of their unaccountable obstinacy.
T abars Commentary on the Verses of Concealment
Description: Hiding Information About Muh ammad
T abar interprets the 11 verses of concealment to mean, in general, that
the People of the Book have hidden information about the prophet of
Islam which they find in the books in their possession. The information about Muhammad is referred to by a variety of terms such as
his amr and his sifa. Sometimes T abar suggests motivations for the
concealment, such as unbelief, fear and greed. In some passages he
indicates larger associated responses, such as refusal to obey God or
the prophet of Islam. Among the noticeable differences to the methodology of Muqtil is the way that T abar will eagerly take up the grammatical questions first, for example the lack of l in the second part of
Q 2:42.112 T abar discusses variant readings, for example for you put
it (tajalnahu) at Q 6:91.113 He is also much less likely than Muqtil
to name particular human characters as subjects of the action.
Because of his citation of multiple traditions, T abars exegesis offers
a variety of options for subject, locus and object of tampering. The
largest circle of actors is at Q 5:15: All the People of the Book from
the Jews and Christians who lived during the time of the apostle of
God.114 The most frequent subject is the Jews. The Jews and the
Christians are specified as the tamperers at Q 2:140 and 2:146. At
112
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 569. For al-Farr, the lack of l in the second part of
the verse was evidently the only exegetical question worth pursuing. Kitb man
al-Qurn, Vol. I, 3334.
113
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. XI, 526.
114
146
chapter five
Q 2:42, 2:159 and 2:174 it is their religious leaders and scholars in

particular who are in view.
T abar and his traditions indicate the Torah and the Injl as the
locus of tampering in seven of the 11 verses. At Q 2:174, 5:15 and 6:91
the Torah alone is mentioned. At Q 2:159, 3:71 and 4:37 he finds a
third locus indicated: the books which God sent down to the prophets
of the Jews.115
In T abars commentary, 10 of the 11 concealing passages indicate
that it is the matter or description of Muhammad which is being
concealed. Indeed, it is virtually the only object of concealment in eight
of the passages. At Q 2:159, T abar adds to the matter of Muhammad
the soundness of his milla, and his truth.116 He finds the mention of
Islam in the former scriptures to be an object of concealment in six
of the verses,117 often in tandem with Muhammad. Two of the passages connect the name of Muhammad to a covenant which God made
with the Children of Israel to make Muhammads matter clear to the
people, that he is Gods messenger sent with the truth. Other objects
of concealment in T abars commentary are the Torahs true testimony
about the identity of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes (at
Q 2:140),118 and the information about the qibla (at Q 2:146).119
The exegesis of Q 5:15 seems to be out of step with the other passages
as far as the object of tampering is concerned. There T abar indicates
only the stoning of married adulterers.120 In support of this object
he offers a narrative, yet another version of the stoning story. When
the Jews asked Muhammad about stoning, he flushed out the most
knowledgeable and adjured him to honesty. Ibn Sriy explains in
this version that so many Jews had to be killed from the application of
the stoning punishment that they reduced the punishment to flogging.121 T abar brings in this story as the sabab al-nuzl of the phrase
in Q 5:15, People of the Book, now there has come to you our mes-
115
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. III, 249; Vol. VI, 506; Vol. VIII, 354; respectively. At Q 2:77,
T abar simply indicates their books. Vol. II, 256.
116
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. III, 249.
117
at Q 2:140, Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. III, 125, 126; at Q 2:159, Vol. III, 250; at Q 2:174,
Vol. III, 328; at Q 3:71, Vol. VI, 506; at Q 3:187, Vol. VII, 460 (that it is the religion
of God which is imposed on his servants); at Q 4:37, Vol. VIII, 352.
118
119
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. III, 187f.
120
121
147
senger, making clear to you many things you have been concealing of
the book.122
A remarkable feature of T abars exegesis of the verses of concealment is the frequency of occurrence of the phrase, they find him written (maktb) with them (indahum) in the Torah and the Gospel.123
The phrase appears 12 times in this exact wording, plus once indicating the Torah alone; and it appears 15 times in similar expressions,
such as they find him written with them.124 Only two of T abars
11 concealing passages do not contain such a phrase.125
In his exegesis of the verses of concealing, T abar does not introduce etymological explanations which help distinguish the individual
meanings of the three verbs. Rather, he seems to understand all three
verbs to have a similar sense. At Q 2:77, he glosses asarra with akhf.126
At Q 5:15, he glosses akhf with katama,127 and his cross-reference of
Q 2:76 there makes an indirect connection to asarra at Q 2:77. Then
at Q 6:91, he glosses akhf with both asarra and katama.128
An interesting aspect of T abars exegesis of two of the katama
verses is that he brings the verbs h arrafa, ghayyara and baddala into
his interpretations. At Q 2:174, he writes that the Jews used to gain a
little price for their tah rf of the book of God.129 He immediately
explains that he means, their interpretation (tawl ) of it toward other
than its intent (wajh), and their concealing of the truth. Further on
in the same passage, T abar repeats that this verse is about those who
tamper with (h arrafa) the signs of God, and alter ( ghayyara) their
meaning (man).130 At Q 3:187, it is similarly the expression sell
for a little price which seems to trigger the use of verbs of alteration.
The Jews gained an advantage by hiding the truth and their tah rf
of the book.131 In this clause, T abar seems to have placed the verbal
nouns kitmn and tah rf in parallel. Further on in the passage, T abar
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 142. T abar also cross references Q 2:76 at this point: And
when they go privily one to another, they say, Do you speak to them of what God has
revealed to you, that they may thereby dispute with you before your Lord?
123
This is the same wording as the Qurnic phrase at Q 7:157.
124
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 257 (at Q 2:77).
125
At Q 5:15 and 6:91.
126
127
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 141
128
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. XI, 526
129
130
131
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VII, 464.
122
148
chapter five
explains the evil of the Jews transaction with another clause of parallel verbal nouns: their squandering (tady) of the covenant, and
their tabdl of the book.132
Analysis: Actions of Inappropriate Response
T abars use of verbs of alteration in the exegesis of katama verses
raises the question of the meanings of the tampering verbs in his
mind. It does not seem logical to conclude that T abar understands
an action of alteration from a concealment verb. The other possibility
is that there is room in his understanding of h arrafa for an action of
concealing. Whether or not this is the case, the overall impression on
reading the exegesis of the concealing verses is that the commentator is
preoccupied with a variety of Jewish responses to Muhammad, most of
them negative. There is the clear sense that the Jews know/recognize/
understand the truth but are responding to the truth wrongly: they
are abandoning and intentionally disobeying what God commanded;133
neglecting to follow Muhammad;134 refusing to tell what they know;135
deliberately choosing to disbelieve;136 and, frequently, denying the
authority of Muhammad.137 These are the actions which T abar and his
traditions see behind the Jewish concealment of their scriptures. The
exegetes use of the imperfect with these actions (you know, you find)
heightens the sense of a continuing crime of inappropriate response.
One of the concealment verses suggests the motivation for concealing in a verb of greed, bakhila (at Q 4:37). Most of T abars traditions
interpret this to be stinginess with the truth about Muhammad,138 but
a tradition attributed to Ibn Zayd finds it to mean Jewish avarice with
what God gave them of income.139
The frequency of concealment verses in Sras 26 of the Qurn,
and thus the substantial amount of material on concealment from
T abar and his traditions, exerts an influence on the development of
the tampering motif in the commentary. Indeed, even in his exege-

at Q 2:146. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. III, 189.
134
135
at Q 2:159. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. III, 250.
136
at Q 3:71. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 506.
137
at Q 2:77. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 256 (trad. 1350); at Q 3:187, Vol. VII, 459.
138
139
132
133
149
sis of h arrafa at Q 5:41, concealment is the main action in focus.140

Concealment of information about Muhammad and other matters
implies true content in an intact text of scripture. This understanding
will tend to prod the commentator to moderate accusations of textual
corruption.141
A striking similarity in T abars exegesis of the concealment verses
with Muqtils exegesis of the same is in what the two exegetes consider to be at the heart of the matter. For these exegetes, Muhammad
is Gods apostle and prophet to all people.142 What he brought is from
God. The covenant which God took with the Children of Israel stipulates that they believe in Muhammad and what he brought, and obey
him. The Jewish leaders know this information from the Torah and
bear a special responsibility to make this clear to the common people. From the Muslim perspective, as reflected in the entire body of
tafsr, here was the evidence of the major sin of the Jewish rabbis,
summed up in the term kitmn: the knowledge of the true status of
Muhammad while concealing that fact in order to mislead the entire
community.143
T abars Commentary on Other Verses of Tampering
Description: Dishonesty with Gods Revelation
T abars interpretations of the verses containing the verbs law, labasa
and nasiya encompass a variety of actions of tampering which range
from inappropriate response to the prophet of Islam to falsification of
the book of God.

Adang draws attention to an example of moderation in T abars exegesis of one
of the concealment verses, Q 6:91. He first cites a tradition attributed to Sad ibn
Jubayr which identifies the Jewish rabbi Mlik ibn al-Sayf as the one who said the scriptural words, God has not sent down aught on any mortal. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. XI,
52122 (trad. 13535). But the exegete indicates his preference for another interpretation which finds the reference to be to the hypocritical Qurayshites insteadbecause
the Jews do not deny Gods revelations. On the contrary, writes T abar, the Jews
acknowledge (iqrr) the suh uf of Abraham and Moses, and the zabr of David.
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. XI, 5245. Muslim Writers, 230.
142
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 572 (on Q 2:42).
143
Rippin, The function of asbb al-nuzl, 3.
140
141
150
chapter five
Twisting
In his interpretation of Q 3:78, T abar and his ahl al-tawl make use
of a trio of verbs which indicate an action of adding something to the
book of God.144 Those who twist their tongues with the book were
the Jews who lived around the city of Gods apostle in his era. T abar
glosses they twist as they tamper (h arrafa).
The Jews twist their tongues with the book, in order that you think that
what they misrepresent (h arrafa) in their speech is from the book of God
and his revelation. God says, powerful and exalted: but that which they
twist their tongues with and misrepresent (h arrafa) and tell, is not from
the book of Godpretending as they twist their tongues with tah rf and
falsehood (kadhib) and deception (btil). So they add (alh aqa) it to the
book of God.... That with which they twist their tongues, and tell, is not
from what God sent down to any of his prophets. Rather, they tell what
is from themselves, inventing (iftar) against God.145
T abar uses the verb alh aqa a second time in explaining they speak
falsehood against God, and that wittingly. He understands this to
mean that they intentionally (taammada) speak a lie against God, and
bear false witness against him, and add (ilh q) to the book of God
what is not from him.146
The traditions which the exegete cites continue in a similar vein.
A tradition attributed to Qatda finds that the Jews tamper with the
book of God, and introduce something new (ibtadaa) into it, pretending that it is from God.147 A second tradition connected with Ibn
Abbs says that the Jews used to add (zda) in the book of God what
God did not send down.148
Later in his exegesis of Q 3:78, T abar explains the original meaning of layy as twisting ( fatla) and reversal (qalb).149 Then at Q 4:46,
T abar explains the action of twisting with their tongues as a movement (tah rk) from them with their tongues, changing the meaning
of a speech toward what is reprehensible (makrh). The Jews did this
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 535.

Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 535. Cf. Adang, Muslim Writers, 229.
146
147
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 536, (trad. 7292).
148
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 536, (trad. 7294). Cf. Saeed, The Charge of Distortion,
428.
149
144
145
151
to show disdain (istikhffan) for the truth of the prophet.150 T abar

further explains at Q 4:46 that twisting with the tongue means tampering (h arrafa) with meaning (man).151 He then cites a number
of traditions which emphasize the aspect of mocking (istahzaa) and
slandering (taana).152 A tradition from Ibn Zayd adds a verb to extend
this aspect: the Jews twist with their tongues in order to counteract
(batta la) the religion.153
Confounding
At Q 2:42, T abar immediately glosses labasa with khalata. But then
he seems to sit back and to take a leisurely approach to the phrase,
and do not confound the truth with falsehood.154 Someone may
wonder, writes the exegete, how disbelievers (kuffr) could have any
truth to confound. In reply, T abar explains that the situation is one of
hypocrisy. In public, the Jews display belief in Muhammad, but actually they are concealing (istabtana) unbelief in him.155 They say that
Muhammad is a prophet who has been sent; they openly acknowledge
(iqrr) him and what he brought. However, they conceal what they
really think: though they aver (aqarra) that he was sent to others, they
deny (jah ada) that he was sent to them. In reality, claims T abar, God
sent the prophet of Islam to the entire creation.156 This is how disbelievers can mix the truth with falsehood.
T abar refers to this earlier explanation when he exegetes Q 3:71.157
There he repeats that the People of the Book publicly attest to (tasdq)
Muhammad and what he brought from God, but that does not
match what is in their hearts from Judaism and Christianity.158 A
tradition ascribed to Ibn Abbs looks ahead to the wording of Q 3:72
and the story of people planning to feign belief to Muhammad and his
companions in the morning and then show unbelief in the evening.
Their intention is to confound (labasa) their religion. Perhaps they

152
153
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VIII, 436 (trad. 9706).
154
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 5678.
155
156
157
158
150
151
152
chapter five
will do what we do, and withdraw from their religion.159 As at Q 2:42,

a number of traditions suggest that the truth which is being confounded with falsehood is Islam with Judaism and Christianity.160
Forgetting
On the phrase and they have forgotten a portion of what they were
reminded of at Q 5:13, T abar discerns a nuance in forgotten similar to what Muqtil found. He writes that they gave up (taraka) a
part.161 He cross-references another verse, and they forgot God, and
he forgot them,162 and glosses its meaning as, they gave up the command of God, and God gave them up.163 He also relays a more colorful tradition attributed to al-H assan, they gave up the handle of their
religion, and the duties of God, exalted his praise, without which their
deeds cannot be accepted.164
At Q 5:14, T abar gives slightly more space to the phrase they forgot a portion of what they were reminded of when applied to Christians (Nasra).165 He offers a revealing amplification of the verse:
We took a covenant with the Christians to obey (ta) my obligations,
to follow (ittib) my apostles and attest (tasdq) to them,166 but they
inserted (salaka) in my covenant that I took with them the way of the
straying community of the Jews. Thus they changed (baddala) their religion, and destroyed (naqada) it and abandoned (taraka) a part of my
covenant which I took with them to be faithful (waf) to my covenant,
and neglected (dayyaa) my command.167
T abar does not mention the Injl as the locus of tampering, but a
tradition attributed to Qatda states that they forgot the book of God
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 504 (trad. 7223).

Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 504 (traditions 72246); cf. at Q 2:42, Vol. I, 568 (trad.
825).
161
162
Q 9:67.
163
164
165
166
Cf. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Christians in the Qurn and Tafsr, in Muslim
Perceptions of Other Religions Throughout History, ed. J. Waardenburg (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1999), 109.
167
159
160
153
in their midst and the covenant of God which he made with them, and
the commandment of God which he commanded them.168
Analysis: An Action of Adding to Scripture
A number of the actions which T abar understands from the verses
containing these three verbs of tampering are actions of disrespect,
duplicity and disobedience. Certainly the sense of confounding is
dishonesty in response to the prophet of Islam. The understanding of
forgetting is the Jewish neglect of the obligations which God placed
upon them.
Twisting tongues, or twisting with tongues, would appear to
refer to a verbal action. At Q 4:46, T abar clearly understands this
to be the sense.169 But at Q 3:78, his focus is on the kitb Allh, and
he describes an action of adding to scripture. Camilla Adang remarks
on the exegesis of Q 3:78, the context suggests that al-T abar understands these additions as oral, not textual. When these rabbis twist
their tongues, they distort the real meaning of the words into something objectionable, scorning Muhammad and his religion.170 If Adang
means by context a comparison with the exegesis of Q 4:46, she is
right to say that the tampering is verbal. If she means by context the
larger exegetical passage on Q 3:7178, this also seems to point away
from a falsification of text. However, the context of T abars exegesis
of Q 3:78 itself, with the verbs alh aqa, ibtadaa and zda, indicates an
accusation of textual falsification.
A question about T abars understanding of Q 3:78 is: Why did he
refer to the book of God as the locus of tampering without specifying
the Torah, even though he had clearly identified the Jews of Madna as
the subject? At Q 5:14 he similarly refers to the kitb Allh in relation
to a tampering action of the Christians, but does not specify the Injl
as the locus.
168
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 136. At the end of his exegesis of Q 5:14, T abar includes
among the wrongs of those who stretched out their hands against you (5:11): their
tabdl of his book, and their tah rf of his commands and his prohibitions. Jmi
al-Bayn, Vol. X, 140.
169
Burton, The Corruption of the Scriptures, 101.
170
Muslim Writers, 229.
154
chapter five
T abars Commentary on Verses Containing Idiomatic Expressions

Description: Strong Tradition of Falsification
Write the Book with Hands
T abars exegesis of Q 2:79 contains a straightforward description of
a tampering action by the Jews, as well as a tradition attributed to
Uthmn ibn Affn which makes a clear accusation of Jewish falsification of the Torah.171 According to Ab Jafar, those who write the
kitb with their hands means:
those who tampered with (h arrafa) the kitb of God from the Jews Ban
Isrl, and wrote a book according to how they interpret it from their
interpretations, opposing what God sent down upon his prophet Moses
(PBUH). Then they sold it to a people who had knowledge neither of
it nor of what is in the Torah, being ignorant of what is in the kitb of
God.172
Here T abar equates the expression kitb of God with the Torah, and
he states that the Jews tampered with that scripture.
T abar transmits a number of traditions which simply say that the
Jews wrote a kitb which they deceptively sold for gain.173 Another
tradition portrays the Gentiles as doing the same.174 He also includes
a tradition attributed to Ab al-Aliya which connects Q 2:79 to the
wording of 4:46: They took up (amada) what God sent down in their
book from the description of Muhammad (PBUH), then tampered
with (h arrafa) it from its places.175 In the midst of these traditions
appears a tradition attributed to Uthmn ibn Affn and traced by
T abar back to Muhammad himself.
Al-Wayl [woe] is a mountain in the fire, and this is what [God] sent
down concerning the Jews, because they tampered with (h arrafa) the
Torah, and added (zda) in it what they liked, and erased (mah ) from
it what they disliked, and erased the name of Muhammad (PBUH) from

173
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 270271 (trads. 1388 and 1393).
174
175
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 271. Lazarus-Yafehs rendering of this tradition, that
the Jews removed from its place the description that was included in the original
divine version of the Torah, does not seem to accurately reflect the text. Intertwined
Worlds, 2021.
171
172
155
the Torah. Therefore Gods anger was upon them, and he cancelled
(rafaa) some of the Torah.176
Sell for a Little Price

The main thrust of T abars exegesis of the expression, sell for a little
price, is his contention that the Jewish leaders concealed information
about Muhammad from the people in exchange for various advantages. The advantages are generally conceived of as material. T abar
glosses little price with the expressions a trifle you covet (tama),177
a paltry (khass) sum,178 and an offer of a little of the goods of this
world.179 The Jewish leaders should explain about Muhammad to the
people without seeking remuneration (ajr) for it, writes T abar.180
At Q 2:79, the wording of the verse itself offers a reason for the
material interpretation: what they earn (kasaba). There the exegete
understands the Jews to be consuming what the common people give
them in exchange for what they write.181 However, when the expression first appears at Q 2:41, T abar adds a second motivation to the
financial: The little price is the pleasure (ridan) they take in leading
the people of their community and religion who follow them, and the
recompense (ajr) they take from whomever they explain these things
to, for whatever they explain to him.182
At the five other occurrences of sell for a little price in Sras 27,
T abar shows a certain ambivalence in his identification of what it is
that the Jews are giving away in the exchange. At Q 2:174, it is a Jewish
action to conceal the matter of Muhammad from the common people
in order to gain a small offer of goods from this world.183 Here T abar
describes the little price as the bribe (rishwa) which they were given.184
Similarly at Q 3:187, the exegete finds that the Jews concealed the
name of Muhammad.185 Such people deserve the exclamation at the

178
179
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 566. T abar offers another phrase at a verse which does
not contain the selling expression, Q 3:78: a paltry sum from the ephemeral things
of this world (h utm al-duny). Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 536.
180
181
182
183
184
185
176
177
156
chapter five
end of the verse, How evil was their selling! Thirdly, at Q 5:44 the
rabbis are giving away neglect (tark) of the judgment in the verses
of Gods book which he sent down upon Moses.186 The judgment in
view is the punishment of stoning for adultery in the Torah. According to one tradition, the Jews concealed this.187 But T abar also writes
at Q 5:44 that the Jews are gaining ill-gotten property (suht) by their
tampering (tah rf) with the book of God, their alteration (taghyr) of
Gods judgment on adultery, and their substitution (baddala) of yet
other commandments. At Q 3:199, where scripture provides a positive
reference to People of the Book who do not sell the signs of God for
a little price, T abar seems to think exclusively of verbs of alteration.
Good people do not tamper with (h arrafa) and substitute (baddala)
what God sent down to them in his books about the description (nat)
of Muhammad or about Gods statutes and proofs.188
Throw Behind Backs
When the phrase throw behind backs first appears at Q 2:101,
T abar explains that this expression (mathal ) means to reject (rafada)
something.189 When Muhammad came to the religious leaders and
scholars of the Jews, writes the exegete, he confirmed the Torah and
the Torah confirmed him. But the scholars rejected the book of God
the Torahby denying (jah ada) it and refusing to accept (rafada) it
after they had acknowledged (aqarra). They did this out of envy and
injustice toward the prophet of Islam.190
At Q 3:187, T abar glosses the expression throw behind backs to
mean they abandoned (taraka) the command of God and neglected
(dayyaa) it.191 One of the traditions he cites identifies the object of
tampering as the covenant, following the wording of the verse itself.192
Two other traditions describe the tampering action envisioned here as
a two-part process: they used to read it, only they gave up (nabadha)

Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 345 (trad. 12021). Cf. 344 (trad. 12019).
188
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VII, 500. Jane McAuliffes translation of T abars two verbs
here as change (h arrafa) and alteration (baddala) is reasonable, but misses the
nuances in the exegetes use of these words which the present study has revealed.
Qurnic Christians, 168.
189
190
191
192
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VII, 464 (trad. 8331).
186
187
157
the doing of it;193 they threw (qadhafa) it between their hands, but
abandoned (taraka) the doing of it.194 It may also be noted that
according to a tradition attributed to Ibn Abbs, the command from
the covenant which the People of the Book rejected was that they obey
the prophet of Islam.195
Invent a Lie Against God
It was noted in chapter four that though the expression invent a lie
against God could perhaps be taken as an action of tampering with
scripture, Muqtil did not understand it that way. T abars interpretation of the phrase shows a similar understanding: he explains that it
means speaking a lie against God. For example, at the first occurrence
of the phrase at Q 3:94, he refers back to the discussion in the previous verse of what foods the Children of Israel made unlawful (tah rm)
for themselves before the Torah was sent down (Q 3:93). The previous
verse contains the striking challenge, Bring the Torah and read it, if
you are truthful. At Q 3:94, T abar writes, Whoever lies (kadhaba)
against God, from us or from you, after your bringing of the Torah
and your reading of it...they are the disbelievers.196
The exegetes explanation of the phrase at Q 4:50 is also very brief.197
He gives several examples of lies which the People of the Book invent:
they say we are the sons of God and his beloved ones; they say that
no one will enter heaven except Jews and Christians; and they claim
that they have no sin. They say these things, T abar writes, and then
attribute them falsely to (ikhtalaqa al) God.198
Analysis: Moderation of a Harsh Accusation
The tradition which T abar attributes to Uthmn ibn Affn in his
exegesis of Q 2:79 is indeed the sharpest accusation of textual falsification encountered in this study. There h arrafa of the Torah is explained
by the verbs for adding and erasing which follow it. T abar himself,
however (Ab Jafar), appears to moderate the accusation of falsification. He portrays the tampering as an action of Jews to write a kitb
195
196
197
198
193
194
158
chapter five
different from the Torah, and then to pass it off as the Torah. Adang
writes that T abar probably means to say that the tamperers wrote
a separate book, alongside the Torah.199 The exegete does not use
the verbs of subtracting from and adding to the Torah which specify a
falsification of the text. In this reading, the meaning of h arrafa is that
the Jewish leaders produce a writing from their own minds and then
deceive the people by selling it to them as the Torah.
Andrew Rippin drew attention to three traditions included in
T abars exegesis of Q 2:79 which seem to simply indicate writing
books and claiming that they are from God.200 He suggested that these
traditions may have nothing to do with the Torah or its alteration,
and speculated that the kitb in view might be the Mishnah or the
Talmud.201 Other scholars who have pursued this line of explanation
are Goldziher,202 Hirschfeld,203 Watt,204 and Lazarus-Yafeh.205 Support
for this suggestion in T abars commentary comes in his explanations
of Q 2:42 and 3:71, where Ibn Zayd explains confounding the truth
with falsehood as mixing up the Torah which God sent down upon
Moses with that which they wrote with their hands.206
For the Jews to write a book which is not the Torah, and then claim
that it is the Torah, is in T abars mind a reprehensible action that
certainly belongs under his larger umbrella of tampering. However,
T abar may simply understand it to mean that the Jews are using a
second book alongside the Torah. In the story attributed to Ibn Zayd
at Q 2:75, the Jewish leaders keep a book with false rulings alongside
the Torah, and choose which book to use based on the bribes of the
supplicants. In this scenario, the Jews write a book which is definitely
not the Torah, but the Torah itself remains unscathed. Similarly at
Q 2:79, T abar finds that the Jews wrote a book out of their own interpretations, and that their deception of the uneducated people is based
on the lack of ability of the common people to distinguish between the
Muslim Writers, 228.

Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 270271 (trads. 1388, 1389, and 1393).
201
The function of asbb al-nuzl, 16.
202
Goldziher noted that al-Maqrz associated Q 2:79 and the accusation of falsification with the Mishnah, rather than with the earlier scriptures, in his Kitb al-Khitat.
203
New Researches, 104.
204
205
206
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 568 (trad. 826); Vol. VI, 505 (trad. 7227).
199
200
159
false book and the Torah. Another reason to believe that T abar may
have had more than one book in mind comes from a scenario which
the exegete offers in explanation of the phrase what the Satans recited
over Solomons kingdom at Q 2:102:
The Jews who were in Madna during the time of the prophet contended
with him through the Torah, but found the Torah to be in full agreement
with the Qurn, commanding them to follow Muhammad and to assent
to all that the Qurn enjoins. They instead disputed with him on the
basis of books which people wrote down from the dictation of soothsayers (kuhhan) who lived during the time of Solomon.207
The verses which contain the phrase sell for small price focus on the
motive of financial gain mainly for an act of concealing or failing to
announce information about Muhammad in the former scriptures. At
Q 2:79, their greed is associated with an act of writing a false book.
And at Q 2:41, the motive of the Jewish leaders is a desire to maintain
their position of authority over the common people. As in Muqtil, the
expression seems to pick up its sense from the context of the verse.
In T abars exegesis of throwing behind backs at Q 2:101 and
3:187, the verb nabadha picked up meaning from its association with
the verbs rafada, taraka and dayyaa. At Q 2:101, the exegete understood that the Jewish leaders denied and discarded the Torahs attestation of the prophethood of Muhammad. At Q 3:187 he was concerned
with the neglect of the covenant, particularly the stipulation to obey
the prophet of Islam.
Finally, T abar understands inventing a lie against God to be a
verbal action, not an action of tampering with the text of scripture.
On the contrary, the context at Q 3:94 (Bring the Torah and read it,
Q 3:93) assumes that the Torah can be produced and checked to verify
the claim which is being made about the lawfulness of foods.
Conclusions
1. T abars exegesis of a large circle of verses of tampering gives the
general impression that the exegete and his chosen traditions assumed
an intact Torah text in the hands of the Jews of Muhammads Madna.
207
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 405. Translation by Mahmoud M. Ayoub, The Qurn
and its Interpreters (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984), Vol. 1, 1289.
160
chapter five
This impression comes, for example, from the repeated occurrence of

phrases such as they find him written with them in the Torah and the
Gospel. The frequency and variety of expressions such as the matter
of Muhammad in the Torah also suggest to the mind of the reader the
assumption of an intact text. Di Matteo was struck by the speech put
in the mouth of Muhammad in traditions cited by T abar at Q 5:41, I
judge according to that which is found in the Torah.208 Such phrases
indicate a concern for continuity between the earlier scriptures and
the recitation which is conceived of as being sent down to the prophet
of Islam. The sense of continuity is further strengthened by T abars
exegesis of the language of covenant and confirmation.
T abar portrays the literate leaders of the Jews as being privy to
special knowledge because of their familiarity with the Torah. A striking expression of this comes in his exegesis of Q 2:40, where he writes
that the Jews had knowledge of past narratives which no one else
knew to be correct and true.209 This knowledge should have inclined
the Jews to accept the authenticity of the prophet of Islam, because he
was reciting these things without having studied the books in which
these things were reported.210 Again at Q 2:41, in his amplification of
the phrase be not the first to disbelieve in it, T abar urges the rabbis
to attest the truth of the Qurn, since with you is the knowledge of
it which no others have.211 In the mind of the exegete, the rabbis of
Muhammads days were better qualified than anyone to inform people
about the descriptions of the Prophet as found in the Torah.212 Their
ability to attest to Muhammad, responsibility to inform the illiterate,
and culpability should they not do so, were all firmly based on the
assumption of an intact Torah in their hands.
2. The definitions of the verb h arrafa which T abar explicitly offers
point firmly toward change of interpretation. He registers this meaning the first two times he encounters the verb, at Q 2:75 and 4:46.
Adang summarizes T abars definition as, changing its meaning and
interpretation, deliberately bending its original meaning to something
else.213 T abar does not repeat this definition at Q 5:13, nor does he
210
211
212
Adang, Muslim Writers, 228.
213
Muslim Writers, 148. This definition is also given twice at a katama verse,
Q 2:174. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. III, 328329.
208
209
161
give an alternative definition there, even though he seems to indicate

a falsification of the Torah itself. At Q 5:41 he specifies that the tah rf
of the Jews was their changing of the judgment of God.
3. T abar makes an accusation of addition to the text of the Torah
in his exegesis of Q 3:78. He also transmits traditions which specify
alteration of text at Q 3:78 and 2:79. These traditions employ strong
verbs of addition and deletion. At Q 5:13 his exegesis of h arrafa indicates that the Jews tampered with the Torah. Though he does not use
verbs of addition or deletion in this passage, his interpretation seems
to envision falsification of text. This suggests at the very least that accusations of textual falsification were among the traditions which T abar
collected and reported in his commentary, and that these accusations
had become attached to specific verses in the Qurn.
These accusations of textual falsification are therefore part of the
total group of actions which T abar envisions in his exegesis of the
tampering verses. The question which this raises is why these accusations appear so tentative and isolated among such a wide variety of
tampering actions which assume an intact text. Why does the accusation seem to appear at one of the h arrafa verses (Q 5:13), but not at
the other three? Why do the sharpest accusations come at verses which
contain no verbs of alteration?
It was noted in chapter four that the wording of Q 2:79 appears to
have a relationship with a tradition cited in Bukhrs Sah h , in which
two phrases are identical with scripture (indicated with quotation
marks): the People of the Book distorted the book with their hands,
then said it is from God, that they may sell it for a little price. The
wording of Q 3:78 also resembles that of Q 2:79, in that the actors
apparently referred to claim that something is from God, yet it is
not from God. Though the verb of tampering in Q 3:78, law, seems
to indicate a verbal action, both T abar and Muqtil understood an
action of textual falsification from the verse. Further, in his exegesis of
Q 5:13, T abar pictures the Jewish leaders writing with their hands
something different from what God revealed, then claiming to the illiterate people that what they wrote was the word of God. Perhaps it is
this reference to claiming divine authority for a writing (kitb) which
God did not reveal which triggers the accusation of falsification at
Q 2:79, 3:78 and 5:13.
Another possible explanation for T abars understanding of a falsification of text at Q 5:13 is the immediate Qurnic context of the
verseand indeed the context of T abars exegesis of Q 5:13 within
162
chapter five
the commentary. The exegete gives special attention to the scriptural

term treachery. His explanation of the verse begins with a reference
to the Jews acting treacherously and stretching out their hands to
Muhammad and his companions.214 In his explanation of you will
never cease to light upon some act of treachery on their part, he
specifies the plan of the Ban Nadr to murder the prophet of Islam.215
The reference is to Q 5:11: O believers, remember Gods blessing
upon you, when a certain people purposed to stretch against you their
hands, and He restrained their hands from you.216 Is it possible that in
the context of a portrayal of the ultimate treachery of the Jews toward
Muhammad, T abar chose to offer an interpretation of h arrafa which
emphasized the extremes to which a faithless people might go?
A third possibility for the isolated and tentative character of T abars
accusations of falsification at Q 2:79, 3:78 and 5:13 will be explored
in chapter 6: the influence of the narrative framework. In any case,
the accusations offered by T abar do not resemble the doctrine of
scriptural corruption as it came to be known. They do not reflect
the fully-developed concept of a general corruption of the text of the
Torah throughout the regions where Jews and Christians lived. The
scenarios are one-dimensional. The object of deletion in Uthmns
tradition at Q 2:79 is the name of Muhammad.217 The Jewish leaders
216
The Sra also links Q 5:11 with the plot to murder Muhammad. Ibn Ishq, Srat
al-Nab, Vol. II, 403.
217
This observation invites further research. The accusations of falsification in
Muqtils commentary were also seen to focus on the description of Muhammad. This
strong link between the harshest accusations of textual falsification and the doctrinaire
claim of a description of Muhammad in the former scriptures continued at least into
the 11th century. As the sabab al-nuzl for Q 2:79, al-Whid (d. 468/1075) wrote,
[this verse] came down concerning those who changed ( ghayyara) the description
(sifa) of the prophet and substituted (baddala) his description (nat). Al-Whid
transmits the following tradition, attributed to al-Kalb: They changed ( ghayyara) the
description (sifa) of the messenger of God (PBUP) in their book, and made him a man
with long hair and of medium brown [coloring]. They said to their companions and
followers: Look at the description (nat) of the prophet who is to appear at the end
of time; it does not resemble the description (nat) of this [man]. The Rabbis and the
scholars used to receive provisions from the rest of the Jews and they feared that their
provisions would disappear if they announced the [true] description (sifa); therefore
they changed ( ghayyara) [it]. Asbb al-Nuzl, 15. Cf. Rippin, The function of asbb
al-nuzl, 1516. al-Whid includes some extra details about exactly how the Jewish
religious leaders changed the description of Muhammad. But the more striking factor
is that in the fifth Islamic century the sabab of this important tampering verse in the
most famous of the asbb works is still focused on the description of Muhammad, and
214
215
163
in Ibn Zayds tradition at Q 2:75 use a second book of rulings about

what is permitted and forbidden. Legal punishments are also the
concern of the Ibn Abbs tradition at Q 5:13. At Q 3:78, T abar and
his traditions do not actually indicate what the Jews added to the
book. The many doctrinaire categories of Ibn H azms later polemic
are not in view here. Neither are sophisticated historical arguments
advanced. Adang notes that T abar tells the story of the destruction of
the Torah in Babylonian times and the rewriting of the Torah by Ezra
in his Tarkh al-rusul wa-al-mulk, but he does not give this story in
his Tafsr.218 Even in the Tarkh account, T abar simply assumes that
Ezra miraculously remembered and rewrote the entire Torah as it had
existed prior to its destruction.219
John Burton writes at the conclusion of his study of T abars exegesis of the h arrafa and katama verses,
One notes a curious reluctance on the part of al-T abar to accuse the
Jewish scholars of altering the texts of the Tora. Although the earlier
authorities on which he leans and on whose views he draws liberally,
show no such hesitation, he himself appears to prefer to moderate their
charges by speaking of the Jews tampering with the interpretation of the
revealed texts in their possession.220
If Burton is thinking about T abars exegesis of Q 2:79, which he mentions but does not explore in his study, he is correct. There the exegetes own statement certainly appears moderate alongside Uthmns
unhesitating accusation of addition and deletion in the Torah. He
is also right if he is thinking about T abars rejection of the Ibn Zayd
tradition of the rabbis and the two books as the interpretation of
on nothing else. Similarly at Q 3:77, immediately preceding the other scriptural passage which seemed to trigger accusations of falsification for both Muqtil and T abar,
al-Whid offers an elaborate narrative in which Jewish scholars write a false description of Muhammad in order to receive gifts from Kab ibn al-Ashraf. At the beginning
of the story, Kab asks the scholars, Do you know that this man is the messenger of
God in your book? The scholars answer Yes, and add, We bear witness that he is
the servant of God and his apostle. Asbb al-Nuzl, 59. Cf. Ayoub, The Quran and
its Interpreters, Vol 2 (1992), 229230. It is also significant that in the fifth Islamic
century, the established asbb for these important tampering verses still envision the
falsification of the former scriptures as occurring during the career of the prophet of
Islam in Madna.
218
Muslim Writers, 230231. Cf. Moshe Perlmann, trans., The Ancient Kingdoms
(The History of al-T abar, Vol. 4) (State University of New York Press, 1987), 6465.
219
Lazarus-Yafeh examines the use of the Muslim Ezra stories in exegesis and
polemic in Intertwined Worlds, 5074.
220
164
chapter five
Q 2:75.221 Burtons statement would definitely characterize the overall

impression which T abars exegesis of the tampering verses creates.
However, T abar also showed that he could himself make use of verbs
indicating textual alteration in his commentary on Q 3:78a passage
which Burton neglects to explore.
4. The stories which T abar narrates in his many tampering passages
portray actions which are included in a larger category of tampering
with scripture but do not point in the direction of textual falsification. In fact, most of the stories rely for their narrative dynamic on
the assumption of an intact text. The Jews of Madna feel animosity
toward Muhammad and express this in their rejection of his authority.
The Jewish religious leaders know the truth about Muhammad from
the scriptures which they read, but they give the lie to him and deny
him. They dont acknowledge that Muhammads recitations are from
God. They hide what they know about Muhammad because they fear
that if they told the truth they would lose both income and authority.
In placing emphasis on concealment as the nub of Jewish culpability,
T abar is simply following the rhetoric of scripture itself: Who does
greater evil than he who conceals a testimony received from God?
(Q 2:140). The Jewish leaders also mislead the illiterate Jews who dont
know the difference between the Torah and a book of Rabbinic interpretations. They mock and insult both Muhammad and his religion.
The Jews neglect the enforcement of the explicit laws of the Torah,
putting more lenient punishments in their place.
T abars way of portraying these actions is literary. He records several scenarios in which the people of the book clearly recognize in
their scriptures both their covenant obligations and the authentication
of Muhammads prophethood, but defiantly ignore the one and refuse
acknowledgement to the other.222 This leads into the subject of the
next chapter. If T abar frequently explains the meaning of tampering
verses through narrative material, what is the influence of a narrative framework of Jewish resistance to Muhammads authority on the
exegetes development of the tampering motif?

McAuliffe, The Qurnic Context, 146.
221
222
chapter six
Method and Meaning in Interpretation

of the Qurn
The preceding chapters have presented a full description and analysis of the exegetical treatment of the tampering verses in the commentaries of Muqtil and T abar. These chapters have developed in
detail what the two exegetes understood by the verbs and expressions
which are found in the semantic field of tampering. Familiarity with
the exegesis of the verses of tampering, however, brings intimations
of concerns which reach outside of the particular passages thus far
described and analyzed. The reader repeatedly glimpses hints of larger
literary patterns in the commentaries which appear to influence the
interpretation of individual verses. The tampering motif, it follows
from these intimations, cannot be adequately known from the interpretations of the particular tampering verses alone. In other words,
while an examination of the individual exegetical treatments of the
tampering verses by these exegetes has provided a good idea of the
language of tampering in their commentaries, more investigation is
needed in order to fully understand the operation of the tampering
motif. This chapter now articulates the claim of the influence of literary structures on the tampering motif, and substantiates this claim
through appeal to a broad spectrum of materials in the commentaries.
The dimensions of the proposed structures, their function, and their
influence are explored. The results of this exploration are then applied
to the understanding of the development of the tampering motif in the
commentaries. This is not an exploration of exegetical method for its
own sake, but rather an inquiry into how method relates to meaning
in particular to the significance of the exegetical passages on tampering. The chapter is followed up by a demonstration of the influence
of a narrative structure on the development of the tampering motif
within a separate but related work, the Srat al-Nab of Ibn Ishq.
The existence of larger patterns which loom over the exegetical
treatment of individual verses in Muqtils commentary was suggested
by an expression in John Wansbroughs Quranic Studies. Wansbrough
found evidence for the operation of a narrative framework in
166
chapter six
Muqtils Tafsr.1 He used this expression to describe a narrative structureor series of literary patternswhich allows an exegete to explain
the meaning of otherwise seemingly vague and unrelated verses. Kees
Versteegh also uses the phrase an overall frame to characterize the
accumulated effect of Muqtils practice of giving the circumstances of
revelation and specifying the persons to whom the verse was applied.2
This concept is brought into use in order to deepen the understanding
of the tampering motif in the commentaries of this study. The exploration begins with Muqtils commentary and proceeds to inquire how
far the suggestion of a narrative framework could also be relevant to
T abars development of the theme.
Wansbroughs use of the concept of narrative framework was part
of his larger exploration of the method of exegesis which he found best
exemplified in Muqtils commentary, and which he termed haggadic exegesis.3 The name is suggestive of a style of commentary which
explains the meanings of the words of scripture by telling stories.4 A
characteristic feature of many of the Muqtil passages referred to in
this study is the introductory formula wa-dhlika anna followed by a
story. Wansbrough found this style of exegesis to be the earliest form
of Qurnic commentary.5 He made a link between haggadic exegesis as modeled by Muqtil and the sermons of popular preachers.6 In
his examination of the commentary he found a number of literary
devices which he felt must indicate oral delivery: inconsistent use
1
Quranic Studies, 123, 125, 137, 141. The writings of John Wansbrough are used
extensively in this chapter and the next because this scholar has provided the deepest
analysis of the exegetical method of Muqtil in the context of the formative period of
Qurnic commentary. Quranic Studies, 122146. Wansbrough also wrote insightfully
on the narrative themes in what he saw as a kind of mirror image of Muqtils tafsr
the Srat al-Nab of Ibn Ishq. Quranic Studies, 1229. Sectarian Milieu, 249.
2
Grammar and Exegesis, 210.
3
Quranic Studies, 122148.
4
Herbert Berg writes that Wansbrough borrowed the name from Jewish scriptural
interpretation. The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam: The authenticity of Muslim
literature from the formative period (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2000), 79. Cf. Norman Calder: The terminology is sectarian, though probably intended to reflect the
universality of hermeneutic approaches. Tafsr from T abar to Ibn Kathr, 105; and
Andrew Rippin: The basic inspiration and thrust of Wansbroughs approach may
once again perhaps be traced to modern biblical studies. Literary analysis of Qurn,
tafsr, and sra, 161.
5
Quranic Studies, 121. Cf. Kees Versteegh, Grammar and Exegesis, 210.
6
method and meaning in interpretation of the qurn 167
of connectives;7 supercommentary;8 compulsive identification of the

vague and anonymous;9 stage directions following qla;10 and serial
repetition and circular explication.11 For an historical link between the
popular sermon and haggadic exegesis, Wansbrough drew on the work
of Johannes Pedersen, Geo Widengren and Ignaz Goldziher. The activity of the popular preachers, or quss s, consisted in interpreting the
Qurn and h adth, enforcing law, and impressing people with fear and
hope.12 The preachers told popular tales, including narratives about
the prophet of Islam and his companions.13 Starting out as a high official in the mosque, the preacher seems to have slipped in reputation
due to a tendency toward what Pedersen calls less controlled activity.
As his aim was to impress his audience he was tempted to use the
means fittest for that purpose.14
Goldziher wrote about the popular preacher in his Muslim Studies.15 There he recounted many stories from Muslim tradition about
the excesses for which the preachers eventually came to be characterized. But he also noted references in the tradition to a time in the early
days of Islam when the name qss had a favorable connotation.16 Some
of these preachers are said to have encouraged the Arabian troops in
their wars. But others were mentioned with distinction as expounders
of the Koran.17 Within this category Goldziher distinguished homiletic exegetes as well as tellers of sacred stories.18 On the evidence
of extracts from sermons offered by al-Jhiz, Goldziher concluded that
the work of the preachers was at one time seen as a positive aspect of

9
10
11
12
Johannes Pedersen, The Islamic Preacher: wiz, mudhakkir, qss, in The Ignace
Goldziher Memorial Volume, Vol. 1, S. Lowinger, ed. (Budapest, 1948), 237.
13
Geo Widengren, Oral tradition and written literature among the Hebrews in
the light of Arabic evidence, with special regard to prose narratives, Acta Orientalia
23 (1959), 237.
14
Johannes Pedersen, The Criticism of the Islamic Preacher, Die Welt des
Islams 2 (1953), 216. For more details on the worsening reputation of the quss s, see
Ch. Pellat, Kass, EI2 (1978), Vol. 4, 734735.
15
Muslim Studies, C.R. Barber and S.M. Stern, translators (London: George Allen
& Unwin Ltd., 1971), Vol. 2, 150159.
16
Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, 152.
17
18
7
8
168
chapter six
the religious life of Islam.19 Regarding the contents of the sermons, he

mentioned stories about Biblical characters, but did not make reference to anecdotes about Muhammad and his companions.20 Goldziher
added an interesting comment on the way in which the preachers tried
to give their audience the impression that they were the experts of
sacred history. They left no question unanswered because it would
have damaged their reputation before the populace if they had admitted their ignorance.21 As examples, he cites the qss who pretended
to give the name of the golden calf, and another preacher who knew
exactly the name of the wolf who had eaten Josepheven though in
the story Joseph had escaped the meal!22
Goldziher also made an explicit link between the verbal activities of
the quss s and the written Tafsr of Muqtil in a passage from his survey
of Muslim exegesis, Die Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslegung.23
Goldziher wrote about the disapproval by some early Muslim scholars
such as Ibn H anbal of a kind of uncontrolled exegesis that incorporated apocalyptic legends and fables of wars. In the explanation of
the Qurn, a delight in telling fables was especially active in relation
to the various Biblical legends, which Muhammad himself had summarized in the style of a compendium, often in a contaminated way.
Goldziher suggested that believers wanted to know more about these
stories, and had an even greater appetite for this information than for
the details of legal prescriptions. In response to this demand a crowd
of curious scribes filled in the gaps of the Qurn out of their dealings
with the Jews and Christians, frequently embellishing whatever they
had heard with stories out of their own imaginations and pretending
to be giving expositions of the Qurn.24
One of these curious scribes, according to Goldziher, was one
Muqtil ibn Sulaymn (died 772), who is characterized as having
received his knowledge of the Qurn from Jews and Christians and

Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, 156. Goldzihers main focus in the discussions was prophetic traditions.
21
22
Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, 157. This brings to mind the claim of Muqtil, in his
commentary on Q 27:18, to know the name of the ant who spoke with Sulaymn.
Cf. Versteegh, Grammar and Exegesis, 214.
23
Richtungen, 579.
24
Richtungen, 578. Cf. Ignaz Goldziher, Schools of Koranic Commentators, Wolfgang H. Behn, ed. and trans. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 378.
19
20
as having harmonized this with their books. Goldziher connected

Muqtil with the class of pious story tellers (quss s; sing. qss) who
had already appeared in the early period, and in whose activity the
fantastic element predominated.25 It was the capricious exegesis of
interpreters like Muqtil that Goldziher felt was responsible for the
discouragement of tafsr in early Islam. There was no secret for them,
and it gave them neither trouble nor scruple to offer as plausible their
fantasy pictureswhich they attached to the Qurn through misleading dependence on reputable authorities.26 As examples of this exegesis through fantasy pictures, Goldziher cited Muqtils interpretations
of the Qurnic verses Q 17:58 and 67:2.27
Wansbrough assumed a long period of oral composition and transmission prior to the first fixed texts of Arabic literature.28 If the process
whereby the oral popular sermon became written haggadic exegesis is
not altogether clear,29 reasoned Wansbrough, the material used by the
preacher certainly made its way into the earliest commentaries.30 He
characterized that material as didactic in an entertaining way, pious
and edifying.31
In the commentaries of Muqtil and T abar, the reader glimpses
the outlines of a narrative structure of Jewish responseand primarily resistanceto religious claims surrounding the prophet of Islam.
The indications come in individual anecdotes which owe much to the
stories told by the earliest preachers of Islam. The Jewish response is
represented by the Jews of Madna during the career of Muhammad
in that city. The Muslim claims include the assertion that Muhammad
is a true prophet and messenger of God, and the declaration that the
words he is reciting are indeed revelations from God. This chapter will
present the evidence for this narrative structure in the commentaries.
It will describe how the narrative structure shows itself in the exegesis
of the tampering verses. Finally, it will make the case that the narrative
Richtungen, 58.
Richtungen, 59.
27
Richtungen, 5960. Goldziher took his examples from later sources, and they do
not match the exegesis of these verses in the published version of Muqtils commentary. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. II, 537 (on Q 17:58); Vol. IV, 389 (on Q 67:2).
28
29
30
Quranic Studies, 147. See also Regula Forster: Muqtil steht zwar mit seiner
Arbeitsweise in der Tradition der Erzhler von biblisch-Qurnischen Geschichten
(der sog. quss s). Methoden arabischer Qurnexegese, 389.
31
25
26
170
chapter six
structure exerts an influence on the exegetical development of the

tampering motif.
The Narrative Framework in Muqtils Tafsr
The exegical devices used by Muqtil in his Tafsr have been described
at the beginning of chapter four of this study. Among those various
devices Wansbrough distinguished four narrative elements: anecdote, prophetical tradition, identification of the vague and ambiguous, and the description of the occasions of revelation.32 Of these four,
Wansbrough characterized the first three as typically haggadic.33 He
explained that while the occasion of revelation is certainly present in
haggadic exegesis, it is only there in an underdeveloped form.34 The
occasion of revelation only really came into its own in halakhic exegesis, he claimed, because the basic purpose of the occasion of revelation
was to establish a chronology of revelation. Haggadic exegesis is not
interested in this function, he wrote. However, he noted, if the occasion of revelation is not a device typical of narrative exegesis, it has an
important role to play in the narrative framework.35
Andrew Rippin has disputed Wansbroughs claim that the essential function of the sabab al-nuzl was to be found in works which
focused on deriving law from the Qurn.36 He writes that a study of
a wide range of asbb materials reveals rather that the purpose of the
occasion of revelation was not halakhic but rather haggadic. Its function is to provide a narrative account in which the basic exegesis of
the verse may be embodied.37 In other words, the primary purpose of
the sabab was literary rather than legal. It was part of the imaginative
effort of the exegete to historicize the Qurn38to construct an overarching narrative framework in which seemingly unrelated fragments

34
35
36
Quranic Studies, 141. Rippin, The function of asbb al-nuzl, 120.
37
Rippin, The function of asbb al-nuzl, 3. In a restatement of his thesis at the
end of the article, Rippin uses the phrase, a basic narrative framework. The function
of asbb al-nuzl, 19. If Rippin is right, his modification of Wansbrough strengthens
the claim of this chapter about the importance of larger literary structures and their
influence on individual motifs.
38
Rippin, Occasions of Revelation, EQ (2003), Vol. 3, 572.
32
33
of scripture could find meaning. Thus Rippin would include the occasion of revelation in a list of the typically haggadic exegetical devices
in Muqtils Tafsr.
Wansbrough did not appear to draw his observations about Muqtils
exegetical method from a sustained examination of the exegetes commentary. Rather, he seems to have taken most of his examples from
Muqtils interpretation of Sra 18.39 Wansbrough evidently did not
look closely at the opening of the commentary, the exegesis of the
second Sra, where Muqtil first demonstrates his exegetical method
and gives the first indications of the narrative framework. In order
to properly understand both the method and the framework, therefore, an investigation of Muqtils interpretation of the second Sra
is essential.
Patterns in an Extended Exegetical Passage
When Muqtils exegesis of the first 162 verses of Sra 2 is examined
closely,40 it reveals strong evidence for the the existence of a narrative
Quranic Studies, 122 ff. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. II, 572607.

Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 81153. Scholars have variously identified the extended
opening section of the second Sra which was traditionally understood to concern the
People of the Book. According to the Sra, In reference to these Jewish rabbis and the
hypocrites of Aws and Khazraj, the beginning of Srat al-Baqara up to the one-hundredth [verse] came down, according to what I have been told, but God knows. Ibn
Ishq, Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 372. Andrew Rippin makes a division between a section of
Biblical history up to Q 2:141 and a section on Islamic identity beginning with Q
2:142. Muslims: Their religious beliefs and practices, Third Edition (London: Routledge,
2005), 3334. Neal Robinson distinguishes the part of the sra up to Q 2:152 from
what comes after it, understanding O you who believe (Q 2:153) to signal the start of
a section on legislation for the new nation which was revealed on a different occasion from that which precedes it. Discovering the Quran: A contemporary approach
to a veiled text (London: SCM Press, 1996), 211. Hartwig Hirschfeld shared the same
opinion on Q 2:152 and the 10 verses which follow it. New Researches, 109, 144, 145.
Mustansir Mirand through him Islhsees the section on the Abrahamic legacy
continuing up to Q 2:162, after which he understands a section on the Shara to begin
with the words, Your God is one God. The Sra as a Unity: A Twentieth Century
Development in Qurn Exegesis, in Approaches to the Qurn, G.R. Hawting and
Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, eds. (London: Routledge, 1993), 217. A.H. Mathias Zahniser
discusses some of the scholarly views in Major Transitions and Thematic Borders in
Two Long Sras: al-Baqara and al-Nis, in Literary Structures of Religious Meaning
in the Qurn, ed. Issa J. Boullata (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2000), 2838. David E.
Smith ends a unit on the Failure of the Children of Israel at Q 2:118, and describes
the next section (Q 2:119167) as Reaffirmation of the authority of the Qurn and
Muhammad through the appropriation of the Abrahamic tradition. For Smith, the
39
40
172
chapter six
framework. The passage contains many examples of anecdote and occasion of revelation. Indeed, the anecdote which Wansbrough translated
from Muqtils exegesis of Q 18:9 and gave in full in Quranic Studies
is typical of the kind of brief story found in the opening section of
the commentary.41 The prophetical tradition does not in fact make its
appearance in this section of the commentary.42 However, identification of the vague and anonymous diversifies into a number of distinguishable narrative elements. As specializations of the category tayn
al-mubham, Muqtil employs both characterization and personification. The repeated identification of such vague objects of tampering as
the matter of Muhammad heightens the narrative dynamic. Muqtil
also uses a literary technique of linking stories from the distant past
with the story of Muhammad in Madna through a series of important
themes. This device could appropriately be termed liaison.43
One of the main narrative techniques in Muqtils exegesis of
Q 2:1162 is the identification of the unspecified subjects and objects
of the verses. In this whole section, the Jews living in Madna during
the story of Muhammad in that city play the major narrative role.
The immediacy of their introduction is striking. Muqtil understands
the very first words of the sra, Alif Lm Mm. That is the book
(Q 2:12a), to refer to an encounter between two Jews and the prophet
of Islam.44 References to the Jews continue all the way up to the exegesis
of Q 2:160.45 Though no word for Jews occurs in the first 28 verses of
the sra, Muqtil uses the expression al-Yahd 12 times in his exegesis of these verses, plus five more times in his explanations of crossreferences. He also refers to the chiefs (ras) of the Jews once and the
basic Islamic legislation begins at Q 2:168. The Structure of al-Baqara, The Muslim
World 91 (2001), 1223. Kate Zebiri simply writes that the longest sustained passage
of Qurnic polemic against the Jews takes up about half of the longest sra of the
Qurn, beginning from Q 2:40. Polemic and Polemical Language, 120.
41
Quranic Studies, 122. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. II, 574576. The story begins typically
with wa dhlika anna (p. 574).
42
Wansbrough wrote that Muqtil favoured the prophetical tradition, and cited
two examples from the exegetes interpretation of Sra 18. Quranic Studies, 133.
43
This seems to follow the Qurns own pattern. Zebiri finds that the first extended
polemical passage in the Qurn dissolves the distance between past and present by
directly associating Muhammads Jewish contemporaries with the misdeeds of Jews
almost two millennia previously. Polemic and Polemical Language, 121.
44
45
people of the Torah twice.46 After the story of Adam in the sra, the
expression Children of Israel occurs twice in Q 2:4047, thought still
not Jews. In his explanation of those verses, however, Muqtil identifies the Jews of Madna 11 times, plus the chiefs three times and the
lowly people (or riffraff, sifla) of the Jews twice.47 After the extended
narrative of Moses and the Children of Israel, the term Children of
Israel appears in the Quran twice, Hd once (at Q 2:111), and Yahd
three times (first at Q 2:113), in Q 2:75123. Muqtils exegesis of the
same passage, however, mentions the Madnan Jews in general 42
times, the chiefs four times, the riffraff twice, and the people of the
Torah three times.48 Finally, after the story of Abraham, the term Hd
appears twice in Q 2:134162, while the exegete mentions the Jews
22 times, the chiefs once, and the people of the Torah twice.49 In all,
Muqtil identifies the Jews of Madna 112 times as the actors of the
mostly vague and anonymous first 162 verses of the second Sra.
Muqtil does indeed mention other actors in this section of commentary: the associating Arabs of Makka,50 the martyrs of Badr,51
the Nasra of Najrn,52 and even the Byzantines of Qust antniyya.53
However, none of these communities receives the sustained treatment
which Muqtil gives to the Jews. Muqtil also takes the identification
of the Jews further than that of any other group by characterizing them
extensively through gloss and anecdote. At many points he glosses
general scriptural references to those who disbelieve (kafara), the
ungodly ( fsiqn) or the evildoers (zlimn) with simply meaning the Jews. The frequent anecdotesmore effective in painting the
actors with memorable narrative colorportray the Jews as dishonest,
scheming and unaccountably obstinate. A good example of a negative
Jewish characteristic introduced into the exegesis of Q 2:1162 is envy.
Muqtil first signals this quality (h asad) in his explanation of Q 2:16.54
Later, evidently with scriptural warrant at Q 2:90 (baghy) and 2:109

48
49
50
Entering as actors only after the Jews, at Q 2:7. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 88.
51
At Q 2:154. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 150152.
52
Especially beginning at Q 2:113. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 132.
53
At Q 2:114. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 133.
54
46
47
174
chapter six
(h asad), he extends the charge that the Jews rejected Muhammad when
he appeared because they saw he was not one of their own kind.55
Repetition of Evocative Names
The general references to the Jews are often accompanied with the
naming of particular members of the community in Madna. For
example, the sons of Akhta bJudayy, Ab Ysir, and H uyayyappear
frequently, as does Ibn Sriy.
However, identification makes way for another literary technique
in Muqtil with the serial repetition of a pair of evocative names. The
name of Kab ibn al-Ashraf appears in the very first exegetical segment of this passage,56 and repeats eight more times in the exegesis
of the first 159 verses.57 Muqtil introduces Kab in his explanation of
the phrases of Q 2:1 and 2:2a, Alif Lm Mm. That is the book. The
exegete writes: That is about how Kab ibn al-Ashraf and Kab ibn
Asad said, when the prophet (PBUH) called the two of them to islm,
God has not sent down a book after Mosesdenying (takdhb) it.58
In his subsequent appearances in the commentary, Kab is the leader
of a group of disbelieving and obstinate Jews who oppose the authority
of Muhammad. At Q 2:14, Muqtil identifies the scriptural Satans as
Kab and his friends.59
The name of Abd Allh ibn Salm appears in Muqtils commentary shortly after Kabs, in the exegesis of Q 2:3,60 then repeats nine
more times in the explanations of the first 130 verses.61 Muqtil introduces Abd Allh ibn Salm in his exegesis of Q 2:4. In a kind of stage
direction just prior to the scriptural words, who believe, the exegete
writes: Then he mentioned the believers of the people of the Torah,
Abd Allh ibn Salm and his companions, among them Usayd ibn
Zayd and Asad ibn Kab and Salm ibn Qays and Thalaba ibn Amr
and Ibn Ymn.62 His appearances throughout Muqtils exegesis of

57
At Q 2:5, 2:14, 2:41, 2:76, 2:101, 2:135, and 2:146.
58
59
60
61
At Q 2:5 (x3), 2:13 (x2), 2:83, 2:121 (x2), and 2:130.
62
55
56
Sra 2 show him to be an honest and honorable Jew who believes in

and follows Muhammad. In the long narrative section which Muqtil
offers after the words of Q 2:5, Abd Allh ibn Salm is challenged by
the disbelieving Jews to give up his faith, but he and his companions
stand firm.63 At Q 2:13, the Jews are exhorted to believe in Muhammad
like Abd Allh ibn Salm and his friends have believed. But the Jews
refuse, calling the converts ignorant.64
The frequent and regular repetition of these names, and the anecdotes which Muqtil retails about them, serve to personify the two
stereotypical Jewish responses to Muhammad. Kab ibn al-Ashraf
becomes a symbol for the obstinate rejection of the authority of the
prophet of Islam by the Jews.65 Abd Allh ibn Salm correspondingly
represents the honest acceptance of the prophethood and apostleship
of Muhammad based on knowledge of his description in the Torah.66
Linking the Past to the Prophet of Islam
Another literary device of Muqtil in the category of tayn al-mubham
is the repeated identification of the mysterious object of tampering as
the matter (amr) of Muhammad. It was noted in chapter four how

65
Rudolf Sellheim found that in the Sra, Kab ibn al-Ashraf becomes the designated
enemy of God after Badr, and subsequently draws the special anger of the prophet
of Islam on himself. Prophet, Chalif und Geschichte: Die Muhammed-Biographie
des Ibn Ishq, Oriens xviiixix (19657), 81. Other Muslim traditions suggest that
the clash between Kab and Muhammad began with an incident in which Kab tried
to prevent Muhammad from establishing a market on his land. M.J. Kister, The
Market of the Prophet, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 8
(1965), 2726.
66
H. Hirschfeld observed regarding Abd Allh ibn Salm: It is a prominent feature
of Moslim tradition whenever the characteristics of a class of individuals are under
discussion, that one person is made the representative of the common idea and held
responsible for anything said or done by any person belonging to that class, or anything that might have been said or done by them. Historical veracity is in this respect
not so much sought after, the chief object being to throw a brilliant light on a certain
point. Historical and Legendary Controversies, 109. J. Horovitz also wrote about
Abd Allh ibn Salm: In Muslim tradition he has become the typical representative
of that group of Jewish scribes which honored the truth, admitting that Muhammad
was the Prophet predicted in the Torah, and protecting him from the intrigues of
their co-religionists. Abd Allh ibn Salm, 52. Steven Wasserstrom suggests that
the words in the mouth of Abd Allh ibn Salm are Muslim reimaginings of the
primordial confrontation with Judaism. Between Muslim and Jew, 176.
63
64
176
chapter six
frequently Muqtil found this to be the unspecified object in the tampering verses for words as diverse as truth, sign and testimony.
This identification is analyzed in greater depth below. Here it must be
noted that indicating the matter of Muhammad repeatedly from the
beginning of the commentary characterizes many of the tampering
actions as personal responses to the prophet of Islam. If the object
of tampering was taken to be a wide variety of objects, such as for
example alleged sins of prophets in the Torah or affirmations of the
deity of Jesus in the Gospel, there would be no cumulative effect on
the narrative dynamic. However, by repeating this particular identification Muqtil reinforces the central narrative pattern, and at the same
time links the prophetic voices of the pre-Islamic past with the Muslim
story and lends coherence to the commentary.
Muqtil links stories from the ancient past with the story of
Muhammadand keeps the narrative flow of his exegesis movingthrough reference to themes such as covenant, confirmation
and authoritative scripture. A good example of this liaison device is
in Muqtils exegesis of Q 2:4041, where all three concepts appear
together.67 The first time Muqtil discusses the theme of covenant in
his commentary is where the word covenant (ahd) first appears in
the Qurn, at 2:27. The scriptural words, The ungodly, such as break
the covenant after its solemn binding,68 signify the Jews, according to
Muqtil. The covenant was taken in the Torah. And the covenant was
that they would worship God and not associate anything with him,
and that they would believe in the prophet.69 At the second occurrence of the term covenant, Q 2:40, Muqtil adds more information.
The Children of Israel also agreed to believe in the prophets and the
book.70
The Qurnic language of confirmation (musaddiq) appears for the
first time in Q 2:41. Muqtil first explains that covenant refers to the
agreement which God made with the Jews in the Torah. He very quickly
specifies that an essential stipulation in that covenant was that the Jews
would believe in Muhammad.71 But they disbelieved in Muhammad,

this phrase repeats at Q 13:25.
69
70
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 100. Here Muqtil cross-references Q 5:12 and indicates
that believe in my messengers means in Muhammad.
71
67
68
Muqtil writes.72 When he explains the phrase, confirming that which

is with you, Muqtil again links this with the Torah.73 The matter
of Muhammad is to be found in the Torah, he writes, but the Jewish leaders have concealed this information.74 Concerning a series of
four occurrences of musaddiq in the passage Q 2:89101, the exegete
writes that the recitation sent down to Muhammad declares the truth
of what is in the books that were before it about Muhammad and
his prophethood.75 Muqtils interpretations of covenant and confirmation link ancient past with Muslim story very effectively, and the
Torah functions as a constant between them. In this connection, it is
surely significant that while the word Torah does not appear at all in
the first two sras of the Qurn, Muqtil names the Jewish scripture
explicitly some 58 times in his exegesis of Q 2:1159.76
Outlines of the Overarching Story
All of the exegetical devices described aboveanecdote, occasion of
revelation, identification, characterization, personification and liaisonare literary techniques. By using these techniques in order to
explain the meanings of passages of scripture which do not seem to
contain any explanatory context, Muqtil skillfully provides them with
sense and coherence by constructing an overarching narrative framework. The structure which he establishes at the beginning of the commentary, in his exegesis of Q 2:1162, continues to serve him as he
proceeds to explain the rest of scripture.
If there is indeed an overarching narrative framework at work in
Muqtils commentary, what is the story? In its largest dimensions, the
story is that God acted in history through an Arabian prophet named
Muhammad.77 Muhammad was sent as a true prophet of God, and

Uri Rubin has investigated the theme of biblical attestation of the prophet of
Islam in a wide variety of early Muslim works in his The Eye of the Beholder: The
life of Muh ammad as viewed by the early Muslims (Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press,
1995), 2143.
74
75
At Q 2:89, 91, 97 & 101.
76
First at Q 2:4. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 84.
77
Scholarly expressions referring to this story include, ...the sequence of world
events centered on the time of Muhammad was directed by God. Rippin, Literary analysis of Qurn, tafsr, and sra, 154; and ...the spiritual, intellectual, and
72
73
178
chapter six
God revealed his word through this particular prophet in recitations

called the Qurn.78 Further, the Muslim story specified that Gods
salvific design had been achieved only with the revelation granted
Muhammad.79
This outer framework can then be segmented into a number of subordinate structures or patterns. For example, one of the best-known
patterns of the story is the response to Muhammad from the Arab
associators in Makka.80 The strongest narrative pattern in Muqtils
exegesis of Q 2:1162 and of the tampering verses in general is the
Jewish responseand primarily resistanceto religious claims surrounding the prophet of Islam. In this subplot, the Jewish response is
represented by the Jews of Madna during the career of Muhammad
in that city. The Jews are portrayed as possessing scripture which
prophesies the coming of a prophet. This should have prepared them
to receive Muhammad readily, and indeed one element in the story is
that the Jews were hoping for military deliverance from hostile Arabs
through the coming of the prophet.81 But while a few Jews respond
with integrity to the appearance of the prophet of Islam on the basis
social transformation brought about by the mission (mabath) of an Arabian prophet.
Wansbrough, Sectarian Milieu, 7.
78
Muqtil signals this very early on in his exegesis of the second Sra, in his
explanation of the unspecified doubt and belief referred to there. At Q 2:2: that the
Qurn came from God and he sent it down upon Muhammad. At Q 2:3: they
believe in the Qurn that it came from God most high and that he sent it down upon
Muhammad. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 81. Frequently in the subsequent commentary,
Muqtil uses these and similar phrases to identify the unspecified objects of doubt,
belief and unbelief.
79
80
Wansbrough found four stages in what he described as the emergence of
the Islamic kerygma in the Sra: (a) initial proclamation, (b) pagan rejection, (c)
opportunist and hypocritical submission, (d) Jewish rejection. Sectarian Milieu, 23.
In the passages of Muqtils commentary investigated in this study, Wansbroughs
fourth stage is by far the most prominent. Rudolf Sellheim wrote about three layers
or Schichten in the Sra, and considered the middle layer (prophetical legend) to be
the one related to Jews and Christians. Prophet, Chalif und Geschichte, 48, 53f.
81
Muqtil tells this story at Q 2:89, where the scriptural phrase is they aforetimes
prayed for victory over the unbelievers. He explains that the Jews used to pray for
assistance through the emergence (khurj) of Muhammad against the idolatrous Arabs.
The Jews said that they found the prophet in their book and that they anticipated
his help. Muqtil writes, Then when God, powerful and exalted, sent Muhammad
(PBUH) from outside of the Children of Israel, they disbelieved in him [though] they
recognized him. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 122. On the connection of Q 2:89 with Muslim traditions about Jewish knowledge of the coming of a prophet, see Rubin, The Eye
of the Beholder, 29; and Wansbrough, Sectarian Milieu, 56, 16.
of the prophecies in their possession, the leaders of the Jews and the
larger part of the Jewish population reject him out of a variety of evil
motives, including obstinacy.82 The issue which arises repeatedly in
anecdotes is whether the Jews will acknowledge the prophethood of
Muhammad, will attest that the recitations he speaks are from God,
and will believe in and obey him. A central concern, therefore, is the
authority of the prophet of Islam. The story continues into a phase of
deteriorating relationships between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes
of Madna, which includes Jewish treachery against the prophet of
Islam and a series of harsh Muslim responses to the tribes.83
Functions of the External Framework
Wansbrough made the claim that the narrative framework has a number of literary functions. The narrative framework, he wrote, both provides a setting for commentary on the text of scripture and serves to
emphasize the Hijz background to Islam.84 The text of the Qurn is
referential, allusive and elliptical. Verses of the Qurn repeatedly leave
open the questions of who is the subject of the action, who or what is
the object, and indeed what kind of action is envisaged. The scriptural
contexts of the verses seldom provide further clues. As a result, apart
from extensive commentary many verses of the Qurn appear meaningless. The narrative framework supplies a context from outside of
the text of scripture and lends coherence to the individual verses.
Rippin describes this pattern as the continual motif of Jewish rejection of the
alleged prognosis of Muhammad/Ahmad in the Torah. The function of asbb
al-nuzl, 4.
83
In Marco Schllers summary of the story of the prophets conflict with the Jews
according to al-Kalb, the phase of Jewish treachery and especially harsh Muslim
responses appears to be paramount. Sra and Tafsr: Muhammad al-Kalb on the Jews
of Medina, in The Biography of Muh ammad: The Issue of the Sources, Harald Motzki,
ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 2325. Schller suggests that many aspects of al-Kalbs version match the orthodox account of Ibn Ishq (p. 24).
84
Quranic Studies, 123. See also Rippin: The integration of the text [of the Qurn]
with the stories of the prophets of the past (primarily Biblical) in the material known
as the qisas al-anbiy, stories of the prophets, and with the story of the life of
Muhammad as embedded in books of Sra (life story) such as that of Ibn Ishq
(d. 767) was designed both to prove the theological fact of the reality of revelation
and to provide a context for interpretation for an otherwise historically opaque text.
Muslims, 4243.
82
180
chapter six
Use of the narrative framework by Muqtil compels the reader to

accept the Qurn document as a source for the life of Muhammad and
thus for conditions in the Hijaz during the seventh century.85 With
his choice of the verb compel, Wansbrough implied that the narrative
framework has power to influence meaning. He followed up this suggestion with a comment on the relationship of the story to the text of
scripture within Muqtils commentary: ...it may be said of [Muqtil]
that the scriptural text was subordinate, conceptually and syntactically,
to the narratio.86 If the narrative framework was indeed paramount in
Muqtils commentary, even to the point of subordinating the words
of the Qurn, then it is also able to influence the treatment of individual themes and motifs such as tampering with earlier scriptures.
Narrative method, the elements of haggadic exegesis, and arguably the influence of narrative on exegesis did not end with Muqtil.
Not only did the narrative approach continue in exegetical literature,
but it can be found in genres as diverse as hadth, Sra, maghz and
ayym. The substance of Bukhr, Muslim and Tirmidh, claimed
Wansbrough, is that of Muqtil, Sufyn, and Kalb. It is also that of
the entire exegetical tradition, excluding the masoretic literature, up
to and including Suyt.87 Calder specified that the second exegete
in this study was also part of this tradition: From T abar to Qurtub,
no exegete within the Sunn tradition relinquishes the story.88 In his
article on the history of trends in tafsr, Calder gave examples of how
T abar appeared to resolve many exegetical questionsor at least make
his choice of preferred interpretationon the basis of narrative.
One of the important questions to be asked following the exploration of the operation of the narrative framework in the exegesis of
the tampering verses is this: To what extent did narrative considerations determine the meaning of the verses of the Qurn in T abars
Quranic Studies, 123. Cf. Rippin: reports of the occasions of revelation were
employed out of a desire to historicize the text of the Qurn in order to be able
to prove constantly that God really did reveal his book to humanity on earth. The
function of asbb al-nuzl, 2.
86
87
88
Tafsr from T abar to Ibn Kathr, 119. Walid Saleh finds that story is also used
extensively in the commentary of al-Thalab (d. 427/1035), and calls it a distinctive
mark of the exegetes approach. Saleh coins an expression, fictive narratives, for
narrative interpretations which have no clear basis in the verses being interpreted. The
Formation of the Classical Tafsr Tradition, 162, 161.
85
commentary? The question is further focused by a remark in Quranic

Studies. Formally haggadic elements in the exegesis of T abar and his
successors, wrote Wansbrough, were functionally of another order,
and had been adapted to a different set of priorities.89 What are the
differences between the commentaries of Muqtil and T abar in relation to narrative exegesis? How do these differences affect their development of the tampering motif?
The Narrative Framework in the Exegesis of the Tampering Verses
The narrative patterns revealed in Muqtils commentary on Q 2:1
162 are also at work in the exegesis of the tampering verses by both
Muqtil and T abar. Chapters four and five described the contents of
these passages in the commentaries and analyzed their development
of the meanings of the Qurnic vocabulary of tampering. This section analyzes the same passages for their indications of a larger narrative framework looming over the exegesis of the particular verses. It
also enquires as to whether the exegetical devices seen to operate in
Muqtils exegesis of Q 2:1162 carry through in the exegetes explanations of the tampering verses. It concludes by posing the question of
whether the narrative framework thus erected can be seen to exert an
influence on the exegesis of the tampering verses.
Indications of the narrative structure of Jewish response highlighted
in this section include the predominance of the matter of Muhammad
as the object of tampering; the interpretation of covenant to mean a
divine stipulation to believe in and follow Muhammad; the exegesis
of the confirmation of the earlier scriptures to mean Muhammads
attestation of their authority; the profusion of the vocabulary of Jewish
resistance; and the tendency to personify paradigmatic response, especially in the commentary of Muqtil. Each feature will be examined for
the contribution it makes to the narrative framework.
Narrative indications are first explored in the commentaries tampering passages already described and analyzed in chapters four and
five. Verses from the Qurn containing keywords which seem to
interact with the narrative currents are noted. The indications are then
89
182
chapter six
traced through other exegetical materials such as the contexts of the

tampering passages in the commentaries.
The Matter of Muh ammad
The narrative pattern which dominates the development of the tampering motif in the commentaries of Muqtil and T abar is the response
of the Jews of Madna to the claims from and about Muhammad.
One of the most important indicators of this influential pattern is the
frequency of identification of the object of tampering as the description of the Arabian prophet in the Torah. This expression occurs
repeatedly in various forms. Often the object of tampering is simply
Muhammad.90 Muqtil most frequently mentions the amr (matter)91
of Muhammad, then his nat (description),92 his sifa (characteristics),93
his bath (sending)94 and its bayn (declaration).95 T abar and his
chosen authorities use all of these expressions,96 and add the marifa
(knowledge)97 of Muhammad, his mabath (mission),98 his nubwa
(prophethood),99 his shan (matter),100 his ism (name),101 and his
dhikr (mention).102
The matter of Muhammad is the main object of tampering in the
commentaries. Muqtil finds it to be the object of tampering in two
of the four h arrafa verses, and in seven of the eight katama passages.
T abar concludes that the matter of Muhammad is not the object
of tampering in the h arrafa verses. However, at Q 2:75 he claims
T abar at Q 2:42, 2:146, 2:159, 3:187 and 4:37.
Muqtil at Q 2:41, 2:42, 2:44, 2:76, 2:140, 2:174, 3:71, 3:73, 3:78, 3:187, 4:37, 5:15
and 6:91.
92
Muqtil at Q 2:16, 2:42, 2:44, 2:79, 3:70, 3:72, 3:78 and 4:37. The substantive
nat is used [in Muqtils Tafsr] only in the specific meaning of characteristics of the
Prophet. Versteegh, Arabic Grammar, 140.
93
Muqtil at Q 4:46.
94
Muqtil at Q 2:41.
95
Muqtil at Q 2:44, 4:46.
96
T abar: amr at Q 2:42, 2:140, 2:146, 2:159, 2:174, 3:71, 3:187, 4:37 and 6:91; nat
at Q 2:42, 2:75, 2:77, 2:79, 3:71 and 4:37; sifa at Q 2:42, 2:75, 2:140, 2:159, 4:37 and
5:41; bath at Q 2:42 and 2:174; bayn at Q 2:27 and 2:159.
97
T abar at Q 2:42.
98
T abar at Q 2:77, 2:159 and 3:71.
99
T abar at Q 2:77, 2:159, 2:174, 3:71, 3:187 and 6:91.
100
T abar at Q 2:174 and 3:71.
101
T abar at Q 2:79, 2:174, 3:187 and 4:37.
102
T abar at Q 6:91.
90
91
that this is exactly the information which the Jews of Muhammads

Madna would be likely to tamper with.103 As noted in chapter five, all
of T abars katama passages mention the matter of Muhammad. At
Q 2:79, both Muqtils explanation and T abars Uthmn tradition focus
on the description of Muhammad as the object of Jewish tampering.
The matter of Muhammad assumed by these exegetes to be found
in the earlier scriptures are the assertions that Muhammad is a true
prophet and apostle, that what he is reciting is in fact a revelation sent
down from God, and that the Jews had made a covenant with God that
they would believe in Muhammad and obey him.104
The scriptural warrant for this conviction that Muhammad will be
found in the former scriptures is not spelled out in the first five sras
of the Qurn. However, Q 7:157 contains the phrase which the exegetes frequently use in their statements of the location and object of
tampering: those who follow the messenger the prophet al-umm
whom they find written in what is already in their possession,105 in the
Torah and the Injl ( yajidnahu maktban indahum f l-tawrt wa
l-injl ).106 In explaining this verse, Muqtil does not advance a text
from the earlier scriptures to support this claim,107 but T abar transmits a substantial tradition about Muhammads description in the
Torah from Abd Allh ibn Amr [ibn al-s]:
He is described in the Torah with his Qurnic characteristics, O
prophet, we have sent you as a witness, a bringer of good tidings, and a
warner, and a refuge for the gentiles (ummiyyn). You are my servant
and my messenger; I have named you the trusting. He is not harsh nor
rough nor crying in the streets (aswq); he does not reward evil with
evil, but pardons and forgives. We will not take him until by him we
have caused the crooked people to say, There is no god except Allah,
and by him we have opened the uncircumcised hearts, the deaf ears and
the blind eyes.108
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 248. Similarly at Q 5:41though the main object of
tampering is the stoning verse in the Torahthe Jewish denial of the prophethood of
Muhammad is still in view. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 316.
104
Muqtil at Q 2:24, 2:42, 2:88, 2:90, 2:101, etc. Muqtil also claims that the
Torah declares that Muhammads religion is Islam. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 131 (at
Q 2:109).
105
Madigans translation of indahum. The Qurns Self-Image, 116.
106
Cf. Goldziher, ber muhammedanische Polemik, 372.
107
108
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. XIII, 164 (trad. 15225). The first part of Abd Allh ibn
Amrs quote matches Q 33:45 and resembles 48:8. See also Watts translation of Ibn
Sads version of the tradition. The Early Development, 578. Ibn Sad, al-T abaqt
103
184
chapter six
T abar writes that At ibn Yasr, who heard this Torah passage
recited, then met Kab al-Ahbr and asked him for verification. Kab
replied that the quote was correct except for the grammatical forms of
the adjectives in the last phrase.109
Another Qurnic locus for the conviction that Muhammads
description is to be found in the earlier scriptures is Q 61:6, where s
ibn Maryam is quoted as saying, Children of Israel, I am indeed the
messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah that is before me, and
giving good tidings of a messenger who shall come after me, whose
name shall be ah mad. These good tidings from s were assumed to
be found in the Injl. In his Tafsr, Muqtil writes that ah mad, in the
Syriac language, is fraqlt.110
The culpability of the Jews of Madna for not responding favorably
to the appearance of the prophet of Islam is based in the commentaries
on the assumption that they know the information about Muhammad
in the Torah in their possession. T abar expands on this assumption by
claiming that not only did the Jews have this information with them, but
that they were the only ones privy to this information. The prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) and his characteristics and his sending
were only with (inda) the People of the Book and no others (dna
ghayrahum).111 In this and many other statements, the exegetes freely
use the expressions with them/you (indahum/kum, maahum/kum)
or between their hands (bayna aydhim). These indeed are scriptural
expressions. The effect of the repetition of these phrases in the com-
al-Kubr (Beirut: Dr Sdir, 1957), Vol. I, 360361. Wensinck discussed al-Wqids

version in his Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, Second edition. Wolfgang H. Behn,
trans. and ed. (Berlin: Adiyok, 1982), 4041. Bukhr connects the tradition with
Q 48:8. Sah h al-Bukhr, Vol. VI, 4445 (kitb al-tafsr, bb 273).
109
Which, from a literary perspective, lends a touch of verisimilitude to the tradition. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. XIII, 164 (trad. 15225). Further to Q 7:157 and treatments
of the verse by Muqtil and T abar see Isaiah Goldfeld, The Illiterate Prophet (nab
umm): An Inquiry into the Development of a Dogma in Islamic Tradition, Der Islam
57 (1980), 67; McAuliffe, The Qurnic Context, 149150; and idem., The Prediction and Prefiguration of Muhammad, 116119.
110
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. IV, 316. Cf. Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder, 23, on Muqtils
exegesis and his remark: This indicates that the identification of the Quranic Ahmad
with the Paraclete of the New Testament is much earlier than is usually assumed by
modern scholars. Further on 61.6 and its exegesis by Muqtil, T abar and others see
McAuliffe, The Qurnic Context, 151, 158 n. 65; and idem., The Prediction and
Prefiguration of Muhammad, 119120.
111
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. III, 251 (at. Q 2:159). As noted in chapter five (p. 160),
T abar signaled this claim already at Q 2:4041. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 554, 563.
mentaries is to make the Jews rejection of the truth of Muhammads

prophethood very personal, even tactile, and to accentuate their culpability and obstinacy.112
The function of this narrative element in the larger framework is
to focus attention on the Jewish response to the prophet of Islam.
According to the commentaries, Muhammad is indeed prophesied in
the scriptures which the People of the Book have in their possession.
The reader/listener of the commentaries knows this information. The
precise form of the prophecies is left somewhat mysterious. In the
terms of the Muslim story, some of the characters who are familiar
with the earlier scriptures respond appropriately to what they read
there. But a larger number of characters choose to disregard that information. The People of the Book are thus clearly culpable in the story
for a negative response to Muhammad. Those who do not disclose the
matter of Muhammad are shown to be liars or tamperers.113
Part of the Covenant
The culpability of the Jews for their negative response to Muhammad
is further dramatized in the commentaries by the assertion that Gods
112
Daniel Madigan writes, Ahl al-kitb should probably be understood as those
who have been given not possession of but rather access to and insight into the knowledge, wisdom and sovereignty of God for which the very fluid term kitb serves as a
symbol. Book, 247 (Madigans italics). Whether this is the meaning of the Qurn
or not, and whether or not therefore scriptural expressions such as with them and
between their hands are to be understood metaphorically, this does not seem to be
the understanding of Muqtil and T abar, nor does it seem to match the dynamic of
the narratives they offer.
113
It is worth noting that in none of the commentary passages investigated in this
study is the object of tampering Jewish and/or Christian creedal statements which
later became the standard themes of medieval polemic. Neither does there appear to
be a significant concern for the actual contents and textual condition of the earlier
scriptures, as there would be later with Ibn H azm and his followers. There is indeed
mention of qibla, Abraham, the stoning verse, legal prescriptions (the permitted and
forbidden), and other objects of tampering. But by far the most frequent object of
tampering is information about Muhammad. This appears to be based not on a demonstration of familiarity with the contents of the earlier scriptures themselves, but
rather on the Qurnic assertion that the messenger and umm prophet can be found
written down with them in the Torah and Gospel (Q 7:157). (Jane McAuliffe notes
that T abar shows no evidence of actually having seen the New Testament texts.
The Qurnic Context, 145.) Another observation on T abars minor objects of tampering is that the focus of concern with the qibla, the ruling on adultery, and the
effacing of Jewish prohibitions, is the authority of the prophet of Islam. The state of
the text of the Torah does not seem to come into view.
186
chapter six
covenant with the Jews in the past included the stipulation that they
believe in and obey the prophet of Islam when he would be sent. The
theme of covenant and its connection to the tampering motif appears
in the tampering passages of the exegetes especially at Q 5:13 and
3:187. That the exegetes would be inclined to discuss the covenant
God made with Israel in these passages is clear from the surrounding context in the Qurn. Both verses contain the keyword (mthq);
Q 5:12 specifies that the covenant is with the Children of Israel, and
that the stipulations of God himself included the command to believe
(mana) in his messengers and support (azzara) them.
There are other passages in Muslim scripture which make possible the exegetical connection of the covenant to the response to
Muhammad, and these may have been in the minds of the exegetes as
they explained the tampering verses. In Q 3:81, God makes a covenant
with the prophets in which he commands them: I have given you of
book and wisdom; then there shall come to you a messenger confirming what is with youyou shall believe (mana) in him and you shall
help (nasara) him.114 The prophets then promise to do so. Also in
Q 7:157, right after the claim that the umm prophet is recorded in the
Torah and Gospel, comes the promise, Those who believe (mana)
in him and support (azzara) him and help (nasara) him, and follow
(ittabaa) the light that has been sent down with himthey are the
prosperers.
Muqtils exegesis of the first appearances of covenant at Q 2:27
and 2:40 was noted in chapter four. T abar likewise first raises the
covenant theme at Q 2:27, but moves considerably beyond Muqtil in
describing the contents of the covenant. The covenant imposed upon
the People of the Book in the Torah was to follow (ittib) Muhammad
when he was sent forth, and to attest to the truthfulness (tasdq) of
both the messenger and of what he brought from their Lord.115 The
Jewish religious leaders were to make his affair clear to the people, and
not conceal it. And his affair in the scriptures included the information that he was a messenger from God to whom obedience (ta) has
been prescribed.116 At Q 2:40, T abar specifies that the literate Jewish
rabbis were required by God to announce that they find him written
On Q 3:81 and the covenant with the prophets see Jeffery, The Qurn as
Scripture, 1279.
115
116
114
with them in the Torah as the prophet of God, and that they believe
in him and in what he brought from God.117 The coupling of obedience to God with obedience to Muhammad in the ancient covenant so
conceived is striking. Another interesting feature of these two passages
is T abars pattern of cross-reference: at Q 2:27 he refers ahead to 2:40,
and quotes 3:178; at Q 2:40 he quotes 5:12 twice, and offers 7:1567
and 9:111 as evidence of information about Muhammad and Islam in
the covenant.
T abars explanations of covenant also highlight the evil of the Jewish response to Muhammad by detailing the boons or mercy of God
in his dealings with Israel in the past. At Q 5:13, after providing a formulaic recital of the gracious things which God did, he writes that the
Jews still broke the covenant. T abar concludes his paraphrase: If this
is what their best people did, in spite of my kindness to them, dont
be surprised if their low people do the same thing.118 Here the Jewish
failure to respond positively to Muhammad is not an understandable
reaction to a cruel and tyrannical deity, but rather is an unaccountable
rebellion against a God who only treated them kindly.
The theme of tampering thus fits into a larger narrative framework
in which a concept of covenant is at work. According to the Muslim narrative, the earlier scriptures contain the record of a binding
contract between God and the Children of Israel. Among the stipulations of that covenant is belief in, support of, and obedience to
Muhammad when he appears. Tah rf is the action of concealing those
particular stipulations, not publicizing them to the common people,
and/or refusing to act upon what God has commanded. Therefore,
the Jews are clearly culpable, and the curse of God rests upon them.
The concept that the Children of Israel are breaking an ancient divine
covenant in their response to Muhammad gives narrative depth and
historical authenticity to the exegetes portrayal of the deceitfulness
and treachery of the Jews.
to introduce a note of dramatic and moral tension into the story of
the response to Muhammads claims. Not only are the Jews responding negatively to the prophet while in possession of scriptural attestation to his prophethood. They are also defying God by breaking an

Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 125, cf. 130131.
117
118
188
chapter six
agreement he had made with them before the prophet appeared. This
double culpability makes the Jews especially worthy of Gods chastisement and curseexpressions which appear frequently in both Qurn
and commentaries. That the Jews have been evil and disobedient in
the past is in this Muslim narrative a matter of common knowledge.
Now in their response to Muhammad they are shown to be acting in
character. They have lost Gods favor by breaking their covenant with
him in past and present. The proof of that covenant is to be found in
the book with which they are tampering.
A Link of Correspondence
Another indication of a larger narrative framework surrounding the
tampering motif is the theme of correspondence between the earlier
scriptures and the recitations of the prophet of Islam. The Qurnic
material on this claim was surveyed in chapter three. Exegesis of this
material in the commentaries tends to accentuate the guilt of the
Jews by showing them to be denying a link of confirmation between
their own scriptures and the words of Muhammad. When the term
musaddiq first appears at Q 2:41, T abar glosses the scriptural phrase
in confirmation of what is with you as the qurn confirms what
is with the Jews of Ban Isrl of the Torah.119 He explains that the
Qurn, the Torah and the Gospel intersect precisely in the command
to acknowledge (iqrr) the prophethood of Muhammad, to attest
(tasdq) him and to obey (ittib) him. This command is in all three
scriptures, writes T abar, so if the Jews attest to what was sent down
to Muhammad, they attest to the Torah as well.120 In his exegesis of
the phrase what is with you, T abar is straightforward in saying that
the Torah and the Gospel are with the Jews, and he cites a tradition
which claims, they find Muhammad...written down with them in the
Torah and the Gospel.121
T abar provides further explanation of musaddiq at several other
occurrences of the term in Sras 26. At Q 4:47 he glosses confirming as muh aqqaq,122 with the sense of verifying or substantiat-

121
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 561 (trad. 816).
122
119
120
ing. He offers an interesting discussion of the scriptural term with

which musaddiq is set in parallel at Q 5:48, muhaymin.123 T abar and
a large number of traditions provide a variety of glosses for muhaymin
(guarding it in safety): providing evidence (shahd) that it is true and
from God, assuring (amn) it, guarding (h fiz) it, supervising (raqaba)
it, and entrusted (mutaman) with it. The Qurn does not contradict
(khlafa) the Torah which God sent down on Moses, which is guidance and light.124 All of these expressions indicate a concept of the
trustworthiness of the earlier scriptures.
An anecdote which T abar transmits in his explanation of musaddiq
at Q 2:97 gives a good idea of the spirit of much of the material on
the earlier scriptures in his commentary. In a tradition attributed to
al-Shab, Umar tells about being present with the Jews on the day of
their study (midrs) and being amazed at how the Torah confirmed
the truth (tasdq) of the furqn, and how the furqn confirmed the
truth of the Torah.125 Umar presses the Jews to say whether they
know (alima) that Muhammad is the messenger of God. One of their
learned and important men answersthough once more only because
he has been adjured before God!that they do indeed know that
Muhammad is the messenger of God. Umar then expresses amazement a second time: If they know that he is the messenger of God, why
do they not follow (tabia) him and attest to (saddaqa) him?126
The claim that Muhammad is confirming Gods earlier revelation
also comes out strongly in the exclamation of triumph which the
prophet of Islam makes at the end of the stoning verse narratives.
This exclamation is worded variously in the different accounts: In
Muqtils tafsr Muhammad says, I am the first to revive one of the
sunnas of God.127 T abars commentary offers two expressions, the first
addressed to God: O God, I am the first who revived your command
(al-Bar ibn zib); and the second a claim of self-identity: I impose
(qad) what is in the Torah (Ab Hurayra). Taken together, these
exclamations show a striking concern to portray continuity between
123
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 377382. Muhaymin, guarding it in safety, is one of the
terms which the Qurn uses for the relationship of the recitation to the Torah.
124
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. XI, 530 (at Q 6:92).
125
126
127
Ibn Ishqs version of the exclamation begins the same way as Muqtils but then
includes a reference to the kitb of God: I am the first to revive the order of God and
his book and to practise it. Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 406.
190
chapter six
the ruling in the Torah and the ruling of the prophet of Islam. These
stories authenticate the claim of Muhammads true prophethood by
demonstrating that the judgment he gives on a difficult legal problem
lines up with Gods judgment contained in the Torah.128
The prophethood of Muhammad in both commentaries, therefore,
is based upon the alleged continuity of his recitations with the revelations of the past, rather than upon a claim of discontinuity because
those scriptures had been previously falsified.129 The problem in focus
in the exegesis of Q 5:41 is that the earlier scriptures are not being
applied, and the prophetic authenticity of Muhammad is demonstrated through his act of reviving divine rulings contained therein.
The narrative is clearly more concerned to show continuity than to
suggest corruption.
to further accentuate the depth of perversity in the Jewish rejection
of Muhammad. According to the commentaries, the prophet of Islam
rules in accordance with the Torah. This authenticates the Muslim
claim that Muhammad is a true prophet of God. The Torah is drawn
into the story as the locus of evidence for that claim. It is not portrayed
as a symbol of Jewish falsification. Quite the contrary. Its role is as a
source of authorityindeed as the only possible authority whereby
a claim to prophethood can be judged.130 As such, the theme of cor128
At Q 5:44, Abd al-Razzq finds the prophet of Islam to say, I impose (h akama)
what is in the Torah. Abd al-Razzq adds, after reporting Muhammads exclamation
of triumph, that he is one of the submitted prophets who make judgments according to the Torah. Tafsr al-Qurn al-azz, Vol. I, 185. Vajda indicated that in the
h adth versions of Muslim and Ibn Mja, Muhammad exclaims, God, I am the first
to revive your command after they killed it. Juifs et Musulmans selon le hadt, 96.
These understandings of Muhammads exclamation persisted at least into the fifth
Islamic century. In his sabab al-nuzl for Q 5:4147, al-Whid reports Muhammad
saying, O God, I am the first to revive your command when they let it perish. Asbb
al-Nuzl, 101. And in a second sabab, for Q 5:44, the prophet of Islam says, I judge
by what is in the Torah. Asbb al-Nuzl, 102.
129
The main polemical argument used in response to the Jewish rejection of the
Qurn revolves around the idea that this scripture confirms the message of the previous scriptures. Uri Rubin, Jews and Judaism, EQ (2003), Vol. 3, 26.
130
This conclusion is born out in other materials in both commentaries. Significant among these is the exegesis of Q 3:23: Have you not regarded those who were
given a portion of the book, being called to the book of God, that it might decide
between them, and then a party of them turned away, swerving aside? Muqtil finds
the meaning of this verse in a story of confrontation between Muhammad and a group
of Jews. At issue is the prophethood of Muhammad. Muhammad calls the Jews to
the Torah, writes Muqtil, because I am written (maktb) in it that I am a prophet
respondence deepens the culpability of the Jews for their negative

response to the prophet of Islam.
Rich Vocabulary of Resistance
When the exegetes portray the encounter between the Jews and the
prophet of Islam, they employ a wide range of vocabulary to describe
the responseespecially the negative responseof the Jews. Some
of this vocabulary echoes the language of the Qurn itself.131 Other
descriptions simply gloss the verbs and terms which the Qurn
employs. But the exegetes go well beyond this word pool to accentuate a set of characteristics which becomes very important in their
picture of the Jews. This attempt at characterization is an important
indication of the narrative structure looming above the exegesis. Characterization is a literary technique. The profusion of the vocabulary of
Jewish response must therefore be seen as one indication of a narrative
dynamic at work. This vocabulary is explored according to the increasing degree of evil and culpability on the part of the Jews.
The appropriate response to the claims of Muhammad is described
by the exegetes in the language of recognition, acceptance, belief and
obedience. The conversation apparently referred to at Q 4:46 provides
the exegetes with an opportunity to articulate this kind of response. The
second part of the verse says that the Jews should have said, We have
and an apostle. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 269. T abar considers a number of traditions,
but prefers the interpretation that Muhammad called a group of Jews to the judgment of the Torah. T abar also understood that the disagreement may have concerned
Muhammads claim to prophethood. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 291. Neither narrative
gives the sense of a corrupted Torah or an act of falsification. Rather, the attestation
of the prophethood of Muhammad is assumed to be found in the Torah, but the
Jews either conceal the attestation or refuse to act upon its truth. Julian Obermann
wrote, the word of God that had been revealed to the people of the Book is forever
reflected in [Muhammads] own revelations and referred to as an ultimate source of
authority. Koran and Agada, 23. Steven M. Wasserstrom argues that Jewish and
Christian traditions were seen to attest to the truth of Islam. Israiliyyat was an outside witness brought in to testify to the veracity of the new religion. The older religion
is called to the witness box to speak on behalf of the new. Between Muslim and
Jew, 174.
131
Hirschfeld characterized many scriptural references to the Jews as abusive titles
and unflattering epithets. New Researches, 105, 106. Radscheit provides an extensive
list of the rich vocabulary of Qurnic terms of opposition to the messenger of Islam
in his article, Provocation, EQ (2004), Vol. 4, 309.
192
chapter six
heard and obey. T abar explains this to mean We heard your saying,
O Muhammad, and we obeyed (ata) your command, and accepted
(qabila) what you brought to us from God.132 T abar further explains
the appropriate response as to believe (saddaqa) in Muhammad and
the truth that he brought, and to acknowledge (qarra) his prophet
hood.133 In other tampering passages, the right response to the truth is
to confess it (itarafa), as Muqtil reports Ibn Sriy doing at Q 5:41.134
Elsewhere Muqtil explains that the Jews acknowledge (aqarra) part of
the matter of Muhammad, while hiding the other part.135
The language of the Qurn allows for the portrayal of appropriate
response by indicating that the subjects of the action know (alima)136
or recognize (arafa).137 When the verb is left open-ended, as is frequently the case in scripture, Muqtil tends to specify the object. At
Q 2:146, for example, he explains through an anecdote that the Jews
know the true qibla from their familiarity with the Torah and Injl.138
The scriptural mana is frequently glossed with the verb saddaqa in
both T abar and Muqtil. In fact, when Muqtil encounters mana
without object in the text of scripture, he typically explains it as saddaqa
in Muhammad, the Qurn, or tawhd.139 Thus the verbal noun tasdq
also occurs regularly in the commentaries as a term for the proper
response to the prophet of Islam.140
Unbelief
The first level of negative response to the prophet of Islam is portrayed
by the exegetes as unbelief (kufr). In their explanations of Q 4:46 and
5:1214, the commentators understand that the People of the Book
fail to believe in Muhammad. Muqtil writes that the Jews disbelieve
(kafara) in Muhammad and what he brought;141 they disbelieve in s
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VIII, 439. Also iqrr at Q 2:77, Vol. II, 256. Cf. Muqtil
on Q 2:83: acknowledge (qarra) the sending of Muhammad. Tafsr Muqtil,
Vol. I, 120.
134
135
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 284, at Q 3:71 (also at Q 2:42).
136
Q 2:140, 2:146, 3:71, 3:75, 3:78, 6:114.
137
Q 2:89, 2:146; Muqtil on 2:76, 2:77, 3:188, 5:83, 6:20.
138
139
For example, tawhd at Q 2:8; Muhammad at Q 2:13 & 14; and Qurn at
Q 2:26.
140
For example, T abar at Q 3:71, Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 504.
141
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 377, at Q 4:46.
132
133
as well.142 He connects unbelief in Muhammad with envy on the part

of the Jews.143 Even Ibn Sriy, who makes an explicit confession of
Muhammads prophethood in both commentaries, subsequently disbelieves.144 At Q 2:211, Muqtil links the Jews unbelief in Muhammad
with their lack of faithfulness to God.145
The use of forms of kafara in the commentaries to characterise the
response of the Jews is extensive. As indicated earlier in this chapter, Muqtil frequently identifies the Jews as the subject of scriptural
unbelief.146 At Q 2:77, two of T abars traditions find the object of the
Jews concealment to be their unbelief.147 T abars glossing of baddala
as kafara at Q 2:211 suggests that unbelief in the minds of the exegetes belongs within the circle of the actions of tampering.148
Duplicity
The Jews are portrayed as dishonest through a wide variety of epithets
and anecdotes in the commentaries. The concealing and confounding verses and their contexts bring to the minds of the exegetes many
examples of duplicity and prevarication.149 In explanation of Q 2:76,
Muqtil tells of a Jew freely revealing to a Muslim ally that he finds
Muhammad in the Torah. But the Jewish leaders warn the rest of the

144
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 477, at Q 5:41. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 304.
145
146
Above, p. 173. For example, at Q 4:47. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 377.
147
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 2567 (trads. 1350 & 1351).
148
149
McAuliffe writes, In the catalogue of exegetical amplification...scriptural passages are not always physically hidden. More commonly, silence, a concealing and
withholding silence, stands as culprit. Obscuring occurs as an act of omission rather
than commission. Jews and Christians deceive their Muslim interrogators by refusing
to disclose either their divinely mandated responsibilities or the biblical predictions of
Muhammad, by simply falling mute before them. The Qurnic Context, 146. Support for this observation comes frequently in T abars commentary, including his early
association of kufr with concealing (at Q 2:6). The rabbis among the Jews of Madna
repudiated (jah ada) the prophethood of Muhammad and kept it secret (asarra) from
the people, concealing (katama) his matter (amr), although they recognized it as
they recognize their sons. The root of kufr among the Arabs is covering (taghtiya)
something. Thus the night is called a concealer (kfir) because its darkness covers
(taghtiya) what it envelops.... Likewise, the Jewish rabbis covered ( ghatt ) the matter
of Muhammad and hid (katama) it from the people, although they knew about his
prophethood and had discovered his description (sifa) in their books. Here T abar
also cross-references one of the katama verses, Q 2:159. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 255.
142
143
194
chapter six
Jews not to mention this to the Muslims.150 At Q 3:72, Muqtil tells

the story of how Jewish leaders find the description of Muhammad in
the Torah in the morning but cant find it at night.151 Again, Muqtil
finds duplicity at Q 3:188, where the Jews say in the presence of both
the prophet of Islam and the Muslims that they recognize and believe
in Muhammad; however, that was not in their hearts.152
The language of scripture also seems to encourage the exegetical
development of this theme in the frequent occurrence of the word
falsehood (kadhib). At Q 5:41, Muqtil associates falsehood with
Kab ibn al-Ashraf and his companions;153 at the following verse he
glosses the same word as zr.154 At Q 4:50, Muqtil finds the falsehood
to be the alleged Jewish claim, We are sons of God and his beloved
ones.155 Elsewhere he understands it to be the Jewish unwillingness
to reveal the prohibition against bloodshedding and money snatching in the Torah,156 or writing something other than the description
of Muhammad.157 Muqtils anecdotes begin to build up a vocabulary
of deception.
It is in the commentary of T abar, however, that the language of
duplicity and dishonesty seems to flourish. In addition to kadhaba, the
exegete uses the verbs iftar (to invent lyingly, at Q 2:79), makara (to
deceive, at Q 4:46) and nfaqa (to dissemble, at Q 2:77). Among the synonyms he gives for falsehood (kadhib, Q 2:42 and frequently) are ifk (at
Q 5:41), btil (at Q 3:78), buht (at Q 2:75), zr (at Q 2:140) and firya
(at Q 2:79). Beyond these, T abar uses the terms h ayra (confusion, at
Q 5:41) and khid (duplicity, at Q 2:77). The Jews of Muhammads
day, he writes, followed the way of the lie against God as their ancestors had.158
Duplicity is also indicated in the scriptural words of Q 5:41: those
who say with their mouths, we believe, but their hearts dont believe.
In their exegesis of these words, Muqtil and T abar retail a series of
anecdotes about Jewish deviousness and deception. The Jews ask the

152
153
154
155
156
157
158
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 129 (at Q 5:13).
150
151
prophet for a judgment while hoping for a ruling other than what they
know to be Gods command. At the same time they are testing him
with evil motives. They want to avoid Muhammads question about
what is in the Torah. Even their best scholar is portrayed as prepared
to prevaricate if not adjured to honesty by a sacred vow. Ibn Suriya
finally candidly admits that the Jews do indeed know (alima) that
Muhammad is a true prophet, but that they will not follow through
on that knowledge because of envy.159
The rabbinical test of prophethood employed by the exegetes is
a good illustration of a narrative structure designed to demonstrate
both the authenticity of the prophet of Islam and the duplicity of
his foes. The story about Ibn Sriy and the three qualities (khisl ),
which Muqtil tells at Q 5:41,160 has been described and analyzed in
chapter four. Wansbrough translated another story about three khisl
from Muqtils exegesis of Q 18:9.161 In that story, representatives
of the Quraysh in Makka ask the Jews of Yathrib whether they find
Muhammad in their book. The Jews reply, We find his description
(nat) as you say.162 The Quraysh are not happy with the answer, but
the Jews add nevertheless, We find that his own people are those most
violently opposed to him, and yet this is the time in which he is to
appear.163 This story portrays the Jews as knowing and acknowledging the authenticity of Muhammad on the basis of their book, and
yet deviously supplying the Quraysh with three questions calculated
to trick him.
Denial
Deception moves into active denial of the truth in the commentaries
with the frequent occurrence of the verbs kadhdhaba and jah ada.164 At
Q 2:79 and 4:44, Muqtil finds the Jewish leaders denying (takdhb)
Muhammad.165 The expession takdhb carries the sense of a deliberate giving the lie to Muhammad, and appears to function as the
161
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. II, 5746. Quranic Studies, 122.
162
163
Wansbroughs translation, Quranic Studies, 122.
164
jah ada means to deny, disacknowledge, and also can take on the sense of
being niggardly and avaricious, and possessing little good. Arabic-English Lexicon,
Book I, Part 2, 381.
165
159
160
196
chapter six
opposite to the action of tasdq, or declaring his truth. Muqtil also

describes the Jews as deniers (mukadhdhibna) of the Torah at Q
2:159.166 One Jewish leader even denies that God ever revealed anything to anyone!167
Muqtil sets juh d and takdhb in parallel at Q 5:14, in his explanation of what the Christians used to do in their various Christological
confessions.168 But the exegete also uses the verb jah ada about the Jews
at Q 2:146, where the object of rejection is the truth about the qibla
revealed in the kitb Allh.169 The verbal nouns of the two verbs appear
to be used even more frequently in T abars commentary. T abar finds
the object of Jewish juh d and takdhb at Q 5:41 to be the prophethood of Muhammad.170 At Q 4:46 he adds to this what he brought
from his Lord.171 And at Q 2:75, he finds that since the Children of
Israel in the past denied Gods spoken word, the Jews of Madna are
likely to deny the description of the prophet of Islam in their books.172
Their crime is the repudiation (juh d) of it after theyd know it to
be true.173
T abar refers to the intention (taammud) of the People of the Book
to disbelieve in Muhammad, implying a conscious decision to deny
the claims of his truth.174 The exegete also supplies a third noun of
denial, inkr, at Q 2:27.175
Disrespect
The theme of Jewish disrespect for Muhammad is highlighted in the
commentaries at Q 4:46, where the exegetes attempt to explain the
mysterious term rin. T abar cites a tradition attributed to Qatda
saying that the Jews used to mock (istahzaa) the prophet of Islam with
the use of that term.176 T abar and his chosen traditions explain with
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 574 (at Q 6:91).
168
169
170
171
172
173
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 411 (at Q 2:27).
174
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 506 (at Q 3:71).
175
176
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VIII, 435 (trad. 9703). Similarly Abd al-Razzq, Tafsr
al-Qurn al-azz, Vol. I, 159. Cf. Watt: a piece of Jewish mockery of Muhammad.
166
167
a remarkable range of vocabulary that the Jews used to insult (sabba)

Muhammad and hurt (dh) him with abomination (qabh ),177 abuse
(shatm),178 derision (istihz)179 and disdain (istikhff).180
The language of disrespect first appears in the Qurn at Q 2:14:
When they meet those who believe, they say, We believe; but
when they go privily to their Satans, they say, We are with you. We
were only mocking (istahzaa). Muqtil identifies the subject as the
unbelieving Jews, and the object of mocking as Muhammad and his
companions.181 The Qurn seems to give exegetes the possibility to
develop this interpretation at Q 6:10: Messengers indeed were mocked
at before thee; but those that scoffed at them were encompassed by
what they mocked at.
Already in the distant past, writes Muqtil, the Jews mocked while
substituting a saying for the word which God had commanded them.182
Their descendents acted the same way toward Muhammad when they
laughed (dah ika) at Gods similitude of the spider and the fly.183
Envy
The language of envy is very important for connecting the narrative
framework of Jewish response with the theme of tampering in the commentaries. As was noted in chapter four, this narrative current appears
very early in Muqtils commentary at Q 2:16, evidently triggered by
the phrase, they who have bought error at the price of guidance.
Muqtil writes that the Jews found the description of Muhammad in
the Torah before he appeared, and believed in him. But when God sent
him from among the Arabs, they disbelieved in him out of envy.184
Muqtil also finds envy to be a motivation of the Jews in his exegesis of
Q 5:13, where he explains that though the Jews knew that Muhammad
Muqtil uses this term to describe rin at Q 2:104. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 129.
See also al-Farr, Kitb man al-Qurn, Vol. I, 69.
179
180
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VIII, 435. By their simultaneous use of Arabic, Hebrew,
and Aramaic, with its natural pitfalls of pun and assonance, it should have been easy
enough for his Jewish opponents to expose his inspired reinforcement of the Truth,
which had been revealed before, to mockery and ambiguity. Julian Obermann,
Koran and Agada, 45.
181
182
183
184
177
178
198
chapter six
was a true prophet from the testimony to him with them in the
Torah, they disbelieved in him after God sent him out of envy that
he was from the descendents of Isml.185 Both Muqtil and T abar
recount the comment of Ibn Sriy to Muhammad at Q 5:41, that
the Jews do indeed know that you are a true prophet, but they envy
you.186 T abar identifies envy as the motivation for Jewish hostility
toward God and Muhammad at Q 2:75,187 and for Jewish concealment
of information about Muhammad in their scripture at Q 2:159.188
Envy is a theme in the Qurn at Q 2:90, 2:105, 2:109, and 4:54.189
Muqtil glosses the grudging (baghyan) of Q 2:90 as envying
(h asadan) Muhammad since he was from the Arabs.190 At the verse
just prior, Muqtil recounts the famous story of the Jews praying
that Muhammad be sent as a messenger to help them fight against
the idolatrous Arabs. Then when God, powerful and exalted, sent
Muhammad...from outside of the Children of Israel, they disbelieved
in him [even though] they recognized (arafa) him.191 Also at Q 3:73,
4:54 and 57:29, the People of the Book do not want God to shower
his bounty on people outside of their circle. Again, Muqtil finds at
Q 3:73 that the reason for the envy toward Muhammad is because the
prophethood will be among outsiders.192 One other reference to this
theme worth noting is Muqtils comments just prior to the scriptural
phrase at Q 2:97, Whosoever is an enemy to Gabriel. The exegete
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 476. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 304 (trad. 11921), 308.
187
188
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. III, 250 (trad. 2373).
189
On envy as Leitwort in the Qurn see Wansbrough, Sectarian Milieu, 16, 17.
190
191
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 122. Wansbrough discusses the treatment of Q 2:89 and
2:109 in the Sra, and the indication there of Jewish envy, in The Sectarian Milieu, 16,
18. This sub-theme that the Jewish tampering action took place only after Muhammad
was sent appears to continue throughout both commentaries. Still at Sra 98, Muqtil
seems to say that there was no problem with the earlier scriptures prior to the appearance of the prophet of Islam. On the scriptural words, And they scattered not, those
that were given the book, excepting after the clear sign came to them (Q 98:2),
Muqtil writes: Those who disbelieve never ceased agreeing on the truth (tasdq) of
Muhammad until he was sent, because they had his description (nat) in their books.
When God designated him from the offspring of someone other than Isaac, they disagreed about him. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. IV, 780. On this particular point T abar pursues the same line in his interpretation of the verse: He is saying that when God sent
him, they split into groups in their opinions about him. Translations from Norman
Calder, Jawid Mojaddedi and Andrew Rippin, eds. and trans., Classical Islam: A sourcebook of religious literature (London: Routledge, 2003), 106, 116.
192
185
186
claims that the Jews consider Gabriel their enemy because after giving
the prophethood exclusively to them, he has now given it to another.193
T abar transmits a variety of traditions about the Jewish expectation of Muhammad in pre-Islamic times at Q 2:89 and 2:90. Several of
them claim that envy of the Quraysh and the Arabs was the motivation
for the Jewish rejection of Muhammad when he appeared.194 Some
of the traditions also reveal how the state of the earlier scriptures
was envisioned. The Jews used to pray for Muhammads help, saying
O God, send this prophet whom we find written down (maktban)
with us.195 They used to find Muhammad written down with them
in the Torah.196 They threatened their Arab enemies, if the prophet
whom Moses and Jesus gave good news ofah madcame, he would
overcome you.197 T abar adds his own judgment that the crime of
the Jews in this story is their denial (inkr) that Muhammad was the
one whose description (sifa) they found in their book.198 These stories
picture an intact Torah in the hands of the Jews at the time of the
appearance of the prophet of Islam. Their narrative logic would be lost
if the reader was to assume the corruption of the Torah.
Greed
As seen above, the scriptural phrase selling for a little price seemed
to trigger many descriptions of the greed of the Jewish leaders in the
commentaries. Muqtil offers an explanation which repeats a number of times in his commentary: an insignificant offer from what the
lowly people of the Jews give them every year from their crops and
their fruit.... If they had followed Muhammad...that food would
certainly have been withheld from them as a consequence.199 At
Q 2:79, Muqtil identifies greed as the motive of the Jewish leaders for
refusing to follow Muhammad, and correspondingly for erasing his
193
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 125. Georges Vajda discusses the theme of Jewish jealousy
in sra and hadth in Juifs et Musulmans selon le hadt , 8587.
194
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 335 (trads. 1526, 1525); 336 (trad. 1533). T abar agrees at
Q 2:90 that the motive of the Jews in this story in denying what they knew was envy.
195
196
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 335 (trads. 1525, 1527).
197
198
199
200
chapter six
description from the Torah. The same phrase appears in explanations

of the motives for concealing a scriptural text.200
The scriptural warrant for this exegesis seems to come only at
Q 9:34: Many of the rabbis (ah br) and monks (ruhbn) devour the
wealth of mankind wantonly and debar from the way of God. To those
who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of God, give
tidings of a painful doom. At Q 5:42 there is also a reference to people who consume the unlawful (akklna lil-suh t)which Muqtil
glosses as a bribe (rishwa).201 One of the tampering verses, however,
contains a verb of greed, bakhala (at Q 4:37). There Muqtil finds that
the leaders of the Jews are being niggardly by commanding the rest
of the Jews to conceal the matter of Muhammad, out of fear. Most of
T abars traditions interpret this to be stinginess with the truth about
Muhammad,202 but a tradition attributed to Ibn Zayd finds it to mean
Jewish avarice (bukhl) with what God gave them of income.203
T abar offers a range of vocabulary in his explanations of what he
understands the Jewish leaders hoped to gain in exchange for their
tampering actions: miserable (khass) goods from this world (at
Q 2:79), bribes (rishwa, at Q 2:75), ill-gotten property (suh t, at Q 5:41),
an object of desire (tama, at Q 2:174), illegal earnings ( yaksibna
min al-h arm, at Q 2:79), and the ephemeral things of this world
(h utm al-duny, at Q 3:78).
Enmity
At the end of his exegesis of Q 2:75, T abar draws a straight line from
the Jews targetting of animosity (nsaba, adwa) toward God and
Moses in the ancient past to the hostility and enmity which the Jews
of Madna show toward God and Muhammad.204 Enmity becomes
an important theme in the exegetes characterization of the Jews. In
T abars exegesis of two of the tampering verses, the Jews are described
as the enemies of God.205
200
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 101, at Q 2:41; Vol. I, 156, at Q 2:174; Vol. I, 320321,
at Q 3:187.
201
202
203
204
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 249. See also Adang, Medieval Muslim Polemics, 148.
205
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 536 (at Q 3:78); Vol. VIII, 352 (at Q 4:37).
The language of scripture seems to allow for the development of this

theme at Q 4:45: God knows best your enemies. Muqtil immediately identifies these as the Jews.206 There is also the explicit statement
in Q 5:82: You will also find the most vehement of mankind in hostility (adwa) to those who believe [to be] the Jews and the associators.207
T abar signals the enmity theme very early in his exegesis of the second
Sra, in association with the words, And some men there are who
say, We believe in God and the Last Day; but they are not believers
(Q 2:8). He writes that when God established Muhammad in Madna,
the learned ones among the Jews displayed malice (daghin) towards
the messenger of God, and manifested enmity (adwa) and hatred
(shann) towards him out of jealousy (h asad) and injustice (bagh)
that is, except for a small group of them whom God guided to Islam
and who became Muslims.208
Rejection
Hostile attitudes are seen to manifest themselves in acts of repudiation in the exegesis of Q 4:46. There the Jews say, We hear and disobey (as). They should have said, We hear and obey (ta). Both
exegetes understand this verse to refer to the Jewish response to the
authority of the prophet of Islam, and from such scriptural hints they
develop an extensive vocabulary of rejection. They envision a broad
range of positions, from a choice not to obey to active defiance of
Muhammad and the Muslims.
It was noted above that the expression sell for little price frequently brings to Muqtils mind the interpretation that if the Jewish leaders had followed (tabia) Muhammad, they would not have
received their annual tithe from the Jewish community. Both exegetes

Marco Schller writes, the Jewsboth in the Qurn and the Islamic traditionare portrayed as having been the most tenacious antagonists of Muhammad....
Opposition to Muhammad, EQ (2003), Vol. 3, 579.
208
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 270. The tone of Muslim scripture at many points seems
to suggest that the enmity is mutual. Hirschfeld found, in reference to Q 2:515, that
The very first public speeches Mohammad made in Medina breathed so much hatred
and hostility that the Jews had everything to fear. Historical and Legendary Controversies, 109. Georges Vajda wrote that the h adth carried the scriptural suggestions
forward: Developing and aggravating the grievances uttered in the Kurn, Muslim
tradition willingly underlines above all the enmity of the Jews. Ahl al-Kitb, EI2
(1960), Vol. 1, 256. See also Vadja, Juifs et Musulmans selon le hadt, 85f.
206
207
202
chapter six
understand Gods covenant with the Children of Israel to have included

the stipulation to follow and obey (both tabia and ta) Islams prophet.
In addition to verses like Q 7:157, where the successful will follow
(ittabaa) the umm prophet, the exegetes had in their minds the frequent Qurnic imperative to obey (ta) God and the messenger
(Q 3:32).209 Indeed, according to Q 4:64, We sent no messenger save
that he should be obeyed by Gods leave.
In spite of Gods command, the Jewish response to Muhammads
authority is characterized by the exegetes through forms of the verb as
(to disobey, resist, rebel).210 The scriptural expression throw behind
backs also brings to the minds of the exegetes the Jewish rejection
of authority. T abar uses the verbs to refuse (ab, at Q 2:159), to
counteract (batta la, at Q 4:46), to renounce (taraka, at Q 2:159 and
frequently), to reject (rafada, at Q 2:146), to oppose (rada, at
Q 2:101) and to abandon (zla, at Q 5:41), to portray Jewish resistance. The Jews intentionally (taammada) disobey (masiya) God,211
and in the same way the religious leaders of both Jews and Christians
renounce (tark) compliance (ittib) with Gods messenger.212
Treachery
A dominant note in the exegetes explanation of Q 5:13 is the theme
of Jewish treachery. This is due in part to the occurrence of the term
khina in the verse, as well as the proximity of Q 5:11 and its traditional association with a story of treachery. T abar glosses khina with
the terms ghadar (treason) and khiyna (faithlessness), and applies
them all to the people of the Jews Ban Nadr, who planned the murder of the apostle of God...and his companions, when the apostle
of God...came to them, asking them for help concerning the blood
money of the mariyyn.213 T abar explicitly connects this action with
the words of Q 5:11, O you who believe, remember the favour of God
to you when certain men formed the design to stretch out their hands
209
The imperative at with God and the messenger as object occurs some 12 times
in the Qurn. At Q 24:56 the command also occurs with the messenger as lone
object.
210
For example in T abar, as at Q 4:46, isyn at Q 7:162, and masiya at
Q 2:146.
211
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. III, 189 (at Q 2:146).
212
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. III, 249 (at Q 2:159).
213
against you.214 A tradition attributed to Qatda deepens the gloss of

khina with kadhib (falsehood) and fajr (immorality).215
The commentaries also associate a story of Jewish treachery with
Q 4:51: Have you not seen those to whom was given a portion of the
book? They believe in sorcery and al-tght and say to those who disbelieve, these are better guided than those who believed in the way.
At this verse, both Muqtil and Abd al-Razzq recount the story of
the conspiracy of the Madnan Jews with the Makkan Quraysh to fight
Muhammad after the battle of Uhud.216 Kab ibn al-Ashraf is the main
villain in both commentaries, and Muqtil accompanies him with 30
other Jews.217
Obstinacy
Finally, the exegetes characterize the Jews of Madna as possessing
a kind of obstinacy or incorrigibility which sets them beyond the
pale. There is abomination (qabh a) among the Jews, writes T abar at
Q 4:46.218 The Jews resist the truth even though they have had all the
opportunities to know the truth and to respond to it appropriately.
T abars favorite vocabulary for stubborn resistance is the verb nada
and the matching adverb ind. At Q 2:90, the exegete explains that
the Jews deserve Gods anger because they disbelieved in Muhammad
when he was sent, rejected (juh d) his prophethood, and denied
(inkr) that he was the one whose characteristics they had found in
their book, obstinately opposing (indan) him, grudging him, jealous
of him and the Arabs.219
214
Muqtil offers this narrative in his exegesis of Q 5:11. Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I,
458460. Schller, Sra and Tafsr, 24, finds this to be one element of the orthodox
account of the prophets conflict with the Jews.
215
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VI, 156 (trad. 11589). Abd al-Razzq offers the same gloss
at Q 5:13. Tafsr al-Qurn al-azz, Vol. I, 183.
216
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 378379. Abd al-Razzq, Tafsr al-Qurn al-azz,
Vol. I, 160.
217
218
219
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. II, 345. Similar wordings also appear in Vol. II, 450 (indan,
at Q 2:91) and Vol. II, 404 (nada, at Q 2:101). Leah Kinberg reviews the Qurnic
use of and and other terms for stubbornness in her article, Isolence and Obstinacy,
EQ (2002), Vol. 2, 541f.
204
chapter six
Marco Schller writes, after studying the narrative pattern of Jewish response to the prophet of Islam in the commentary of al-Kalb,
the Jews doubted, were won over by obstinacy and did not convert
to Islam.220 Jane Dammen McAuliffe writes that this diagnosis runs
strong in the Muslim tradition:
Although the sources do mention legal or financial motives for scriptural
distortion, overwhelmingly they ascribe it to theological obstinacy. Jews
and Christians willfully refused to recognize and/or acknowledge the
clear descriptions of Muhammad and his advent which were, to translate
a Qurnic locution literally, between their hands (bayna aydhim).221
After giving the Jews this chance, writes Muqtil in his exegesis of
Q 5:13, God hardened their hearts against faith in Muhammad.222
Again, there are suggestions of hardness of heart in scripturein Q
5:13 as well as in 2:88 and 2:74: Then, even after that, your hearts were
hardened and became as rocks, or worse than rocks, for hardness.223
In both Q 2:88 and 5:13, scripture pairs hardness of heart with a curse.
Indeed, the exegetes regularly apply the frequent scriptural occurrences
of cursing and severe punishment to the Jews.224 T abar interprets the
curse at Q 4:46 to mean that God has humiliated the Jews, driven them
away, and removed good sense from them.225 At Q 5:13 he writes that
God has removed good and success from the Jews, and faith from
their hearts.226
220
Sra and Tafsr, 26. Schller cites a tradition which al-Kalb gives at Q 3:12,
that the Jews, after acknowledging Muhammads prophethood after the battle of Badr,
doubted the same after the battle of Uhud. The Jews subsequently broke their treaty
with Muhammad and Kab ibn al-Ashraf went to Makka to incite the leaders there to
fight the prophet of Islam.
221
The Qurnic Context, 148. Arent Jan Wensinck sensed the same theme in
similar stories about Muhammad and the Jews transmitted by Ibn Ishq and Ibn Sad.
A great many of these accounts owe their origin to the direct accusation against the
Jews who, although they saw the long expected prophet live before them, refused to
believe. That these obstinate people received their just punishment on account of this
attitude was no more than proper. Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, 39.
222
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 461. The expression God has set a seal on their hearts
at Q 2:7 also prompts from T abar a statement of the incorrigibility of the disbelieving
Jewish rabbis. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 266.
223
The motif of hardening of the heart in the Qurn and its relationship to comparable imagery in the Bible is explored in Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 7273.
224
One of the most frequent invectives against the Jews is that God has cursed
them. Hirschfeld, New Researches, 106. Of the tampering verses examined in this
study, seven contain a curse or punishment.
225
226
The function of this striking profusion of vocabulary of resistance in

the larger narrative framework is to characterize the Jews as a devious
and obstinate people. Characterization is a literary technique. Muqtil
and T abar use this technique to lend colour to the narrative they are
constructing of Jewish response to the authority of the prophet of
Islam. In the terms of such a characterization, would the Jews be more
likely to falsify the scriptures in their possession, or merely to conceal
the truths in their scriptures and prevaricate?
Personification of Responses to Muh ammad
Muqtils technique of personifying paradigmatic Jewish responses in
his exegesis of Q 2:1162 was noted earlier in this chapter. That pattern continues throughout his commentary, including in his exegesis
of other tampering verses. A good example of the way he contrasts the
two types of Jews in his narrative is in his exegesis of Q 3:75. On the
sentence, Of the People of the Book is he who, if you trust him with
a hundredweight, will restore it to you, Muqtil writes that this refers
to Abd Allh ibn Salm and his companions. On the other hand, he
identifies Kab ibn al-Ashraf and his companions as the ones who,
if you trust him with one pound, will not restore it to you, unless you
stand over him (Q 3:75).227
Muqtil finds Kab ibn al-Ashraf to be the major actor in six of
the tampering passages examined in chapter four.228 Kab also appears
frequently in the commentary in the immediate contexts of the tampering explanations.229 At Q 4:51, Muqtil identifies Kab as the mysterious al-tght.230 There the exegete provides an extensive account
of Kabs visit to Makka after the battle of Uhud, together with H uyayy
ibn Akhtab and thirty other Jews. Kab makes a deal with Ab Sufyn
to fight Muhammad.231 Ab Sufyn then asks Kab for some advice
about Muhammad, since you are men from the People of the Book,

At Q 2:146, 2:159, 2:174, 3:78, 4:37 and 5:41 (x4).
229
For example, at Q 3:72, 3:75, 4:47, 5:42 (x2) and 5:44 (x3).
230
Abd al-Razzq specifies tght at Q 4:51 as both Kab and H uyayy ibn Akhta b.
Tafsr al-Qurn al-azz, Vol. I, 160.
231
227
228
206
chapter six
reading the book. After asking a set of questions, Kab pronounces,

By God, you have better guidance than Muhammad has.232
Treachery is also in view in Muqtils story of Kabs involvement in
the plot of the Ban Nadr to kill Muhammad at Q 5:11.233 But in this
narrative structure, treachery receives its just deserts (Gods curse
at Q 4:52). Muqtil tells the story of the assassination of Kab at the
hands of Muhammad ibn Maslama at Q 4:52234 and 59:2.235 He offers
this story to explain the meaning of the words, whomever God curses
will not find a helper (Q 4:52). The story of the assassination of Kab,
reported with poetry and great detail in the Sra,236 thus becomes a
parable of earthly recompense for those who oppose the rule of the
prophet of Islam.237
On the other hand, the example of appropriate Jewish response is
given in Muqtils commentary in the person of Abd Allh ibn Salm.
At Q 5:13, Abd Allh ibn Salm and his companions are the exceptional few among the Jews who will not act treacherously toward
Muhammad. When Muhammad adjures Ibn Sriy to honesty at
Q 5:41, Abd Allh ibn Salm is the one who stands with the prophet
of Islam. At Q 2:130, however, he takes a more active role of actually
spreading the faith. There Muqtil tells the story of how Abd Allh
ibn Salm invited his nephews Salama and Muhjir to Islam and told
them, Do you not know that God, powerful and exalted, said to Moses,
I am sending a prophet from the descendents of Isml, saying to
him, ah mad will divert his community away from the fire, and that
whoever denies (kadhdhaba) ah mad the prophet is cursed, and whoever does not follow his religion is cursed?238 Salama submitted to
the call, but Muhjir refused (ab) and detested (raghiba an) Islam.
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol I, 379.

234
235
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. IV, 2756.
236
Ibn Ishq, Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 5649. Cf. Ibn Sad, al-T abaqt al-Kubr,
Vol. II, 3134.
237
Uri Rubin, The Assassination of Kab ibn al-Ashraf, Oriens 32 (1990), 6571.
According to the Sra, Our attack upon Gods enemy cast terror among the Jews, and
there was no Jew in Madna who did not fear for his life. Ibn Ishq, Srat al-Nab,
Vol. II, 569.
238
232
233
Muqtil specifies this as the sabab al-nuzl of the phrase, Whoever

shrinks from (raghiba an) the religion of Abraham (Q 2:130).239
Compared to Muqtil, T abars citing of specific names as the perpetrators of the tampering actions is rare. Two of the traditions he
transmits at Q 5:11 find Kab to be involved in the plot to kill the
prophet of Islam.240 But when T abar discusses the perpetrators of that
treachery at Q 5:13, he only indicates the Jews of Ban Nadr.241 Certainly a striking feature of the many versions of the stoning verse story
which T abar recounts at Q 5:41 is the absence of both Kab and Abd
Allh ibn Salm. Indeed, the exegete gives some space to the question of whether Ibn Sriy the one-eyed was actually involved in the
story, as specified in a tradition attributed to Ab Hurayra.242
The function of this narrative element in the overall framework is to
portray paradigmatic responses to the prophet of Islam in a personal
and lively way. Kab represents the Jewish leaders who are well aware
of the testimony to Muhammad in their scriptures and yet transgress
that knowledge in every possible way. Abd Allh ibn Salm is the
symbol of piety and integrity which responds appropriately to the
information about Muhammad in the Torah, believes and follows.
Conclusions
The foregoing detailed examination of tampering passages in the
commentaries of Muqtil and T abar confirms the impression of the
operation of a narrative framework over the exegesis of the individual
239
Tafsr Muqtil, Vol. I, 140. The alleged divine intimation to Moses of a prophet
to come resembles the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18, a major prooftext of medieval
polemic. Wasserstrom describes the process of Abd Allh ibn Salms portrayal in
Muslim tradition as mythicizing, and suggests that the story of his encounter with
Muhammad was designed to support the Muslim assertion of a Jewish prophesying
and recognizing the coming of Muhammad. Between Muslim and Jew, 177.
240
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 104 (trads. 11562, 11563). While he may not often give
the names of the tamperers, T abar remained free to pass on stories about Kab ibn
al-Ashraf from his various sources. At Q 3:186, for example, he transmits al-Zuhrs
story of Kab oppressing five men from the Ansr and insulting Muhammad in the
process. The story ends with Kabs murder. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. VII, 58.
241
Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. X, 133. Rubin notes that T abar does not mention the name
of Kab in his exegesis of Sra 59, and attributes this to considerations of chronology.
It seems, that having a sharp historical sense, al-T abar was aware of the fact that
Kab had been killed already after Badr. Assassination, 70.
242
208
chapter six
tampering verses. That framework was signalled in Muqtils exegesis

of Q 2:1162, where he also indicated a series of narrative themes. In
the explanations of the tampering verses in both commentaries, narrative themes are further filled in with details, and new themes are
introduced. It may simply be noted that in the commentary of T abar,
the narrative framework is also signalled both early and extensively.243
The themes of the matter of Muhammad, the covenant in the Torah,
and the link of correspondence between Muhammad and the earlier
scriptures all serve to portray the Jews as culpable for not responding
appropriately to the information in their possession. The paradigmatic
responses personified by Kab ibn al-Ashraf and Abd Allh ibn Salm
similarly focus attention on the acceptance or rejection of the prophet
of Islam and the scriptural witness to him. All of these elements relate
to the authority of Muhammad. All of these elements depend for their
narrative dynamic on the concept of an intact Torah in the hands of
the Jews of Madna.
Among the vocabulary of Jewish resistance, the bulk of the characterization paints a picture of a people who make culpable choices on
the basis of adequate information. Norman Calder compared Qurnic
style to a Chinese painting in which a high pagoda or a mountain top
is suspended in the sky.244 The observer, he wrote, is compelled to fill
in details to provide a support for the mountain topthough not with
just any kind of foundation. The independent structures of Chinese
poetry inform the observer of exactly how to fill in the emptiness of
a Chinese landscape.245 In Qurnic commentary, Calder suggested, the
gaps in scripture also need to be filled in according to independent
structures. This study has revealed an independent narrative framework of Jewish obstinacy looming over the interpretation of individual
verses. Muqtil and T abar fill in details of Jewish unfaithfulness to an
intact Torah to support the Qurns vague, suspended accusation of
243
A reading of the first volumes of T abars commentary reveals passage after passage of characterization of the Jews, using the same word pool of verbs and adverbs.
Already at Q 2:4, T abar writes that the second Sra, from its beginning, alludes
to a condemnation by God of the unbelievers among the People of the Book, those
who claimed to confirm (musaddiq) what the messengers of God who were before
Muhammad had brought, but who gave Muhammad the lie (kadhdhaba), denied
(jah ada) what he brought, and maintained, despite their denial, that they were the
rightly guided. Jmi al-Bayn, Vol. I, 248.
244
245
tampering. Some of the verbs and adjectives employed by the exegetes

could indeed go well with an accusation of textual falsification. Hostile
and treacherous people, for example, are capable of any evil. Greed is
associated with an accusation of falsification at Q 2:79. But even these
characterizations are used by the exegetes to explain verses where
alteration of text is not in view. And the multiple facets of deception,
disrespect, envy and rejection are best highlighted by a story of inappropriate response to the truth. This leads to the conclusion that the
narrative structure discovered in the commentaries favors the understanding of a variety of other actions of tampering over the accusation
of textual falsification.
To continue Calders image, exegetes are never free to paint in the
details arbitrarily, but rather the filling has to be measured against
independent structures.246 Two internal structures which guide the
exegetes are the Qurns own material on the earlier scriptures, and
the constraints of the tafsr genre. An external structure which the
foregoing investigation has revealed is the narrative framework of
inappropriate Jewish response to the prophet of Islam and to the truth
of the Torah. The claim that this narrative framework influences the
exegesis of the tampering verses will now be explored, again using an
insight from Calder.
In order to test the claim of narrative influence over the exegetical
treatment of the tampering theme, the following chapter will bring in
a separate Muslim genre. The Sra of Ibn Ishq was written at about
the same time as Muqtils commentary, and T abar used many materials from Ibn Ishq in his Jmi al-Bayn. While the two exegetes
wrote explanations of continuous scripture into which they incorporated narrative, Ibn Ishq wrote a continuous narrative into which he
incorporated scripture. Ibn Ishqs treatment of the Qurnic materials
related to tampering promises to provide an indication of the direction
in which a narrative of Jewish obstinacy would take the question of the
falsification of scriptural text.
246
chapter seven
Influence of Narrative Framework on Exegesis

The narrative elements described in the preceding chapter reveal the
outlines of a narrative structure which looms over the process of interpretation in the commentaries. That narrative structure is concerned
with claims of authority for the prophet of Islam and the responses to
him from the People of the Book, primarily the Jews of Madna. This
narrative structure in turn exerts an influence on the way in which the
exegetes interpret the tampering verses. An external structure brings
meaning and coherence to the explanations of the disparate details of
the tampering verses. An understanding of this influence makes possible a fuller perception of the development of the tampering motif in
the commentaries.
Authority of Narrative Over Dogma
An important illustration of the influence of narrative structures on
the development of exegetical themes was provided by Norman Calder
in his article, Tafsr from T abar to Ibn Kathr. Calder demonstrated
the authority of what he termed the discipline of narrative to determine exegetical decisions over theological dogma and even prophetic
h adth.1 He pointed out the importance of narrative for T abar in particular, and gave examples from the Jmi al-Bayn of how the appeal
of story tended to win out over theological considerationsat least
those which were already circulating at the time of T abar. The subject
of Calders exploration was exegetical treatments of Qurnic verses
about Abraham. The popular narrative was that Abraham had lied,
and this seemed to bear more weight for T abar than the doctrine
of prophetic sinlessness.2 The exegete was also familiar with many
traditions which favoured Ishmael as the intended victim of Abrahams sacrifice. But T abar himself preferred to recognize Isaac as the
Tafsr from T abar to Ibn Kathr, 117118, 108.
1
2
212
chapter seven
victimbecause this was the established narrative about Isaac and

Jerusalem.3
In T abars mind, wrote Calder, popular narrative emerged historically prior to theological dogma, and therefore exerted greater authority for the exegete.4 In the two exegetical situations highlighted by
Calder, T abar knewand transmitteda range of opinion which was
diverse to the point of contradiction. Over against 17 statements which
favored identification of the sacrifice victim as Isaac, T abar offered 24
statements from authorities of similar weight and standing in favor
of Ishmael.5 He had to defend his position against three major rational
objections which had arisen to the identification of Isaac.6 With time,
of course, Muslim theological dogma favored the identification of Ishmael, and this view found vigorous exegetical expression in the Tafsr
of Ibn Kathr.7 But even so, T abar allowed narrative to determine his
exegetical decision.
With Calders analysis in view, and on the basis of the evidence of
this study that the obstinacy of the Jews was a reigning narrative theme
in the mind of the exegetes, the influence of narrative on the exegesis
of the tampering verses can be envisioned. The Islamic doctrine of
the corruption of the earlier scriptures had not emerged fully by the
time of Muqtil or even T abar, but it was possibly in the process of
development. In the absence of a reigning doctrine of the corruption
of pre-Qurnic scriptures, what sort of shape might the narrative be
expected to take?
The need in the narrative is to make a case for the truth of the
claims of the prophet of Islam, and to show the Jews as brazenly refusing to acknowledge this truth. In discussing the former scriptures, the
exegetes would want to show that the attestation of the prophetic status of Muhammad can be found in the former scriptures. They will
also want to amplify the Qurnic claim that the recitations which the
Arabic messenger is making confirm what the People of the Book have
with them. This would be consistent with Muhammads claim in the
commentaries that he is reviving the commandments of God. In treating the obstinacy of the Jews, the exegetes would want to show that
5
6
7
3
4
influence of narrative framework on exegesis
213
the Jews were fully culpable because everything they needed to know
in order to make an appropriate response to Muhammads claims was
right in front of them.
This is indeed largely what happens in the commentaries. The dominant actions of tampering which the exegetes narrate are actions which
depend for their narrative dynamic on the presence of an intact Torah
in the hands of the Jews of Muhammads Madna.
The Narrative Dynamic of the Sra
As a test case for the claim of the influence of narrative on the exegetical development of the tampering verses, a survey of the treatment
of the earlier scriptures in the Sra serves well. The similarity of the
Sra to Muqtils Tafsr, as well as to the narrative exegesis contained
in T abars commentary, was noted in chapter four.8 The presence or
absence of the accusation of textual falsification in this early narrative
work, and the narrative logic of its presence or absence, will shed light
on the narrative dynamic in the commentaries.
The thrust of the extended account of the prophet of Islam in the
Sra is that Muhammad is essentially linked with the line of earlier prophets;9 indeed, the Sra openly asserts that the coming of
Muhammad is predicted in the earlier scriptures.10
There are a number of stories about anticipation of the coming of
Muhammad among various groups of people. According to Ibn Ishq,
the expectation among the People of the Book comes from having read
descriptions of Muhammad in the previous scriptures.11 For example,
Jewish rabbis and Christian monks had spoken about the prophet of
Islam as the time of his appearance drew near. They reported his
description (sifa) and the description of his time which they found in
their scriptures and what their prophets had enjoined upon them.12
Regarding the Jews, the Sra presents a trio of stories which portray
Above pp. 7273, 72 (nt. 23). Cf. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 127.
W. Raven, Sra, EI2 (1997), Vol. 9, 6612.
10
Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder, 2123, 217218.
11
Wensinck observed this expectation not only in Ibn Ishq, but in other early
writers such as Ibn Sad (d. 230/845) and al-Wqid (d. 207/823). Muhammad and the
Jews of Medina, 3943. cf. Raven, Sra and the Qurn, 41.
12
Srat al-Nab, Vol. I, 132. English translations from the Sra are frequently
indebted to Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad.
8
9
214
chapter seven
Jews predicting the coming of a prophet.13 The Arabs are inclined to listen, because, We were polytheists worshipping idols, while they were
people of the scriptures with knowledge which we do not possess.14
Ibn Ishq writes that God told Muhammad that he had made a covenant with the earlier prophets that a messenger would come confirming what they knew.15 When Christians from Abyssinia came to meet
Muhammad in Makka, they heard him recite the Qurn and promptly
believed in him. They recognized (arafa) in him the things which
had been said of him in their scriptures about his matter (amr).16
Indeed, the Sra contains one of the earliest Muslim quotations of a
text from the Gospel.17 Ibn Ishq quotes a version of the passage John
15:2316:1, then adds that the Syriac munah amann (which he says
is equivalent to the Greek al-baraqlts) is Muhammad.18 Use of
this passage from the Gospel shows a concern for an essential con13
Srat al-Nab, Vol. I, 137139. Wasserstrom refers to larger cycles of tales in
which non-Muslims prophesy Muhammad, exemplified in the Sra. Between Muslim
and Jew, 176.
14
Srat al-Nab, Vol. I, 137. In two of the stories, the Arabs are predisposed to
accept Islam by the prophecies of the Jews. However, the Jews deny Muhammad when
he appears, in one case out of wickedness (baghy) and envy (h asad). Srat al-Nab,
Vol. I, 138. In the third story, the Ban Qurayza are warned about the coming of a
prophet who will be sent to shed blood and to take captive the women and children
of those who oppose him. Srat al-Nab, Vol. I, 139.
15
Srat al-Nab, Vol. I, 153, quoting Q 3:81.
16
Srat al-Nab, Vol. I, 263, connecting it with Q 28:5355. In the famous story of
Bahr, which is found in the Sra at Vol. I, 116119, the Syrian monk recognizes the
prophet of Islam from his description in a book that was in his cell. Ibn Ishq does
not specify the Gospel, but rather variously describes this source as his books and
the Christian books. When other People of the Book also recognize Muhammad
and want to get at him, Bahr warns them off, reminding them of his mention
(dhikr) and his description (sifa) which they would find in the kitb. Srat al-Nab,
Vol. I, 118. A. Abel describes Ibn Sads version of this story in which the monk knew
Muhammad because he had found the announcement of his coming in the unadulterated (tabdl) Christian books, which he possessed. Bahr, EI2 (1960), Vol. 1, 922.
However, there is no hint of such a distinction in Ibn Ishq.
17
Wansbrough called it the earliest attestation in Muslim literature of the technique of citing proof-texts from the earlier scriptures. Quranic Studies, 63.
18
Srat al-Nab, Vol. I, 152153. Guillaume makes the case that Ibn Ishqs citation is from the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary. The Version of the Gospels Used in
Medina circa 700 A.D., Al-Andalus 15 (1950), 289296. Sidney H. Griffith notes that
Ibn Ishq took the freedom to alter the text of John in accordance with Islamic sensibilities. The Gospel in Arabic: An Inquiry into its Appearance in the First Abbasid
Century, Oriens Christianus 69 (1985), 138. Interestingly, Ibn Ishq does not connect
the Syriac munh h emana of John 15:26 with the ah mad of Q 61:6, a common practice
of Muslim polemical writers. Cf. Watt, The Early Development, 58; and A. Guthrie
and E.F.F. Bishop, The Paraclete, Almunhamanna and Ahmad, The Muslim World
41 (1951), 252f.
215
nection between Jesus and Muhammad which can be found written

in the Injl itself.19
When Muhammad begins his preaching in Makka, the leaders
of the Quraysh send two representatives to Madna to ask the Jewish rabbis about him, explaining, for they are the first people of the
scriptures and have knowledge which we do not possess about the
prophets.20 Later in Madna, Abd Allh ibn Salm accepts Islam.21 He
is introduced as the rabbi of Ban Qaynuq and their most learned
man. Abd Allh ibn Salm designs a ruse with Muhammad in order
to demonstrate his high standing among the Jews of Madna as well as
the deceitfulness and treachery of the Jews. When the Jews affirm the
good reputation of Abd Allh ibn Salm, he challenges them to accept
the prophet of Islam. By God you certainly know that he is the apostle
of God. You find him written with you in the Torah by his name
and his characteristics. I testify that he is the apostle of God, I believe
in him, I hold him to be true, and I acknowledge him.22 This story
assumes a Torah in the possession of the Jews of Madna in which the
description of Muhammad could be found. It also initiates Ibn Ishqs
personification of the appropriate Jewish response to Muhammad in
the person of Abd Allh ibn Salm.23
19
In Ibn Ishqs account of Salman the Farsi, Salman travels to a location in Syria
to meet an ascetic healer. In this strange story, the healer turns out to be Jesus, who
promptly sends Salman to the Arabian prophet. Srat al-Nab, Vol. I, 145146.
20
Srat al-Nab, Vol. I, 195. Wansbrough pointed out that the version of this story
in Muqtils Tafsr, at Q 18:9, includes the prediction of Muhammad in Jewish scripture (Tafsr Muqtil, II, 574576). The Quraysh say, Tell us whether you find any
mention of him in your scriptures. The Jews reply, We do find him described (nat)
as you say. Quranic Studies, 122 (Tafsr Muqtil, II, 575).
21
Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 360361.
22
Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 361. Ibn Hishms version of the Sra does not suggest a
Torah prophecy of Muhammads coming as it does with the passage from the Gospel.
However, Ynus ibn Bukayrs record of Ibn Ishqs lectures contains just such a suggestion. Ynus transmits a tradition that Umm al-Dard asked Kab al-H ibr (h ibr
means something like Jewish scholar) what reference he found to the prophet of
Islam in the Torah. Kab al-H ibr answered, We find Muhammad the apostle of God.
His name is al-Mutawwakil. He is not harsh or rough; nor does he walk proudly in the
streets. He is given the keys that by him God may make blind eyes see, and deaf ears
hear, and set straight crooked tongues so that they bear witness that there is no god
but God alone without associate. He will help and defend the oppressed. Guillaume
provides this translation then characterizes it as a garbled version of Isaiah 42:27.
New Light on the Life of Muhammad, Journal of Semitic Studies, Monograph No. 1
(Manchester University Press, n.d.), 32.
23
The process of personification continues in Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 3978, where
Abd Allh ibn Salm is presented along with three others as Jews who submitted,
216
chapter seven
An extended passage in the Sra about Muhammad and the Jews of

Madna offers a narrative framework for Sra 2 as well as for many
other passages in Sras 35. In this section a large number of verses
of tampering are touched on. How does the Sras confidence in the
earlier scriptures and the theme of a correspondence between those
scriptures and the coming of Muhammad relate to the Sras treatment
of the Qurnic verses of tampering?
On Q 2:75 Ibn Ishq relates basically the same story which Muqtil
and T abar offer in their explanations of the verse.24 The Jewish leaders
hear the commands and prohibitions from God and understand them.
But when they return with Moses to the people, a group of these leaders
changed (h arrafa) the commandments they had been given by contradicting Moses and claiming that God had commanded something different. Ibn Ishq here glosses the word of God as the Torah. However,
the narrative he offers does not concern a text and its falsification, but
rather only an audition of the voice of God and the verbal alteration of
Gods commandments when reporting them to the people.
In relation to Q 4:4446 Ibn Ishq gives a very short narrative about
a Jew who twisted his tongue when he spoke to the prophet of Islam.25
He names the particular Jew as Rifa ibn Zayd. Rifa said, give us your
attention, Muhammad, so that we can make you understand. Then he
slandered (taana) and dishonored (ba) Islam. The focus of this story
is on a verbal act of attacking Islam in the presence of Muhammad.26
There is no suggestion here of a text and its physical alteration.
Ibn Ishq does not link a narrative with Q 5:13, though he provides
details of the treachery of the Jews against Muhammad in relation
to Q 5:11.27 However, he provides a long narrative passage as the occasion of revelation of Q 5:41.28 The story is substantially the same as the
verse of stoning story found in Muqtil, Abd al-Razzq and T abar.
Abd Allh ibn Sriy, introduced as the most learned man living in
the Torah, affirms that the Torah prescribes stoning for adulterers.
believed, and were earnest (raghiba) and firm (rasakha) in Islam. The disbelieving rabbis say that the converts are the very worst Jews because they have given up their
ancestral religion. Ibn Ishq finds this to be the sabab al-nuzl of Q 3:113: Yet they are
not all alike; some of the People of the Book are a nation upstanding, that recite Gods
signs in the watches of the night, bowing themselves. Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 398.
24
25
26
Cf. Wansbrough, Sectarian Milieu, 19.
27
28
217
He says that the Jews know that Muhammad is a prophet sent by God,
but dont want to acknowledge the truth because of envy. Here Ibn
Ishq also attaches the story of a rabbi concealing the verse of stoning
with his hand.29 The prophet of Islam calls for a Torah to be brought
out. When Abd Allh ibn Salm removes the rabbis hand from the
page, the verse of stoning is revealed.30 Muhammad says, Woe to
you Jews! What has induced you to abandon (taraka) the judgment of
God which you hold in your hands (bi-aydkum)? The Jews explain
how they agreed to adjust (aslah a) the punishment to flogging. The
prophet of Islam then proclaims, I am the first to revive the command (amr) of God and his book and its practice.31 All of the parts of
Ibn Ishqs narrative envision an intact Torah which can be produced
and read aloud by Jewish Torah experts. Muhammads proclamation
that he revives Gods book appears to come out of a concept that the
book is authentic and reliablewhether the books custodians are
trustworthy or not.
At several other points in his narratives about the response of the
Jews of Madna to Muhammad, Ibn Ishq appears to be working
from a concept of an intact and sound Torah. For example, he glosses
Q 2:42, do not conceal the knowledge which you have about my
apostle and what he has brought when you will find it with you in
what you know of the books which are in your hands.32 The three
Jewish tribes of Madna shed each others blood, while the Torah was
in their hands by which they knew what was allowed and what was
forbidden.33 In relation to Q 2:8990, Gods anger against the Jews
is at what they have disregarded of the Torah which they had by
disbelieving in the prophet of Islam.34 The prophet wrote to the Jews
of Khaybar that God has revealed the words of Q 48:29, and you will
find it in your scripture.35 Here Ibn Ishq includes a rather remarkable
29
Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 406. Bukhr attaches the same story to Q 3:93: Bring the
the Torah now and recite it, if you are truthful. Sah ih al-Bukhr, Vol. V, 170 (kitb
Tafsr al-Qurn, bb 58).
30
The role of Abd Allh ibn Salm as the one who caused the reader of the Torah
to lift his hand from the stoning verse is discussed by Vajda in Juifs et Musulmans
selon le H adt, 95.
31
32
33
Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 382 (in explanation of Q 2:8485).
34
35
Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 386. Wansbrough describes this as a challenge to the
addressees to acknowledge that Muhammads prognosis was contained in Jewish
scripture. Sectarian Milieu, 15.
218
chapter seven
challenge in Muhammads letter: Do you find in what he has sent

down to you that you should believe in Muhammad? If you do not
find that in your scripture then there is no compulsion (kurh) upon
you.36 In another story, the prophet of Islam enters a Jewish school
and calls the Jews to God. In the ensuing exchange they disagree about
the identity of Abraham, so Muhammad says to the Jews, Then let the
Torah judge between us.37 Ibn Ishq claims that this was the occasion
of revelation of Q 3:23: Hast thou not regarded those who were given
a portion of the book, being called to the book of God, that it might
decide between them, and then a party of them turned away, swerving aside?38 Ab Bakr invites a learned rabbi named Finhs to Islam
because the Jew knew that Muhammad was the apostle of God who
had brought the truth from Him and that they would find it written in
the Torah and the Gospel.39 Near the end of this Sra section on the
Jews, a group of Jews puts the question to Muhammad directly: Is it
true, Muhammad, that what you have brought is the truth from God?
The prophet responds, You know quite well that it is from God; you
will find it written in the Torah which you have....You know well that
it is from God and that I am the apostle of God. You will find it written in the Torah you have.40 The claim in all of these examples is that
the Torah which is in the possession of the Jews of Madna during the
rule of Muhammad there will confirm his status as a prophet of God
and the divine origin of the recitations which he is giving.
Ibn Ishq also links narrative with several of the katama verses, and
the theme of concealing seems to be an important part of his characterization of the Jews. Besides Q 2:42, mentioned earlier, he treats
Q 2:159, 3:71, 3:187, and 4:37. As sabab al-nuzl for Q 2:159, he tells a
simple story about Arabs asking the Jewish rabbis about a matter contained in the Torah. The rabbis respond by concealing it from them
and refusing (ab) to tell them anything about it.41 Ibn Ishqs asbb
for the other three katama verses similarly appeal to the Jews to be
36
Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 387. This statement seems to combine a confidence in the
scripture of the Jews with a candid uncertainty about its contents.
37
38
Cf. Hirschfeld, Historical and legendary controversies, 105106. This story
appears frequently in works of both asbb al-nuzl and tafsr. See for example Whid,
Asbab al-Nusl, 5152.
39
40
41
219
honest about what they find in the Torah.42 The most logical conclusion from these stories is that the Torah which the Jews are encouraged to consult is understood by Ibn Ishq to be the book which they
have in their hands.43
A striking fact about the narratives Ibn Ishq offers about the Ahl
al-Kitb in the Sra is the absence of any accusation of the falsification of the previous scriptures. In his section on references to the
Jews in Srat al-Baqara, he offers no comments on Q 2:79, 3:78 or
5:13which as we have seen seemed to trigger an accusation of falsification in Muqtil and T abar. This raises the question as to why the
author of the Sra did not use these verses in his narrative. If he had
heard the accusation of falsification, why did he not include it in his
characterization of the Jews of Madna? There is little doubt that in
this salvation history the Jews emerge as a deceitful, obstinate, indeed
treacherous people. Did Ibn Ishq not consider the accusation of their
falsification of the Torah helpful for his portrayal? Was he possibly not
familiar with the accusation?
In this regard, Wansbroughs comment about the development of
the theme of tampering in the Sra is curious. He wrote, One topos
emerges as dominant: the Muslim charge of scriptural falsification
(tah rf ) and its corollary, supersession (naskh) by Islam of the Biblical dispensation granted to Israel....The accusation is usually made
in foro externo in circumstances calculated to reveal Jewish perfidy in
failing to preserve the original of their own scriptures, because these
had (!) contained prognosis of the Arabian prophet.44 But where is
the evidence in the Sra for this remark? Wansbrough cited Ibn Ishqs
treatment of Q 2:42 (kitmn), 2:59 (tabdl) and 2:75 (tah rf ). As has
been shown above, Q 2:75 was connected in the Sraas in the commentariesto the story of the Jewish leaders verbally contradicting
Moses report of the commands of God. The gloss of Q 2:42, mentioned earlier, seems to make the point that the Jews are concealing
information about the prophet of Islam which they can readily find in
the books which are in their own hands. Ibn Ishq treats Q 2:59 in the
Srat al-Nab, Vol. II, 394, 400.
On the sabab al-nuzl in the Sra for Q 2:159, Wansbrough wrote, The concealment (kitmn) topos became an important component of the Muslim charge that
Gods word had been distorted and abused in the hands of faithless custodians. Sectarian Milieu, 17. However, there is no indication of this in Ibn Ishqs treatment of
the verse, nor elsewhere in the context of this passage in the Sra.
44
42
43
220
chapter seven
context of Gods dealings with the Children of Israel.45 The Israelites

said verbally something other than the h itta which God commanded
them to say. None of these cases could be called a charge of scriptural
falsification. There does not appear to be any hint in the Sra section on
the Jews of Madnathe focus of Wansbroughs explorationthat the
Jews possessed a corrupted scripture and that the claims that Ibn Ishq
is making could only therefore be confirmed through access to some
other original scriptures. Jewish perfidy is certainly a major theme
in the Sra, but Ibn Ishq does not demonstrate this by telling stories
about the Jews failure to preserve their scriptures. Rather, he portrays
it by offering a narrative about Jewish obstinacy to acknowledge the
truth about Muhammad and what God revealed through himwhich
is clear from their own scriptures. Wansbrough added, The use and
abuse of scripture was thus a polemical concept, adduced in support
of the Muslim claim that Gods salvific design had been achieved only
with the revelation granted Muhammad.46 Again, this is not the case in
the Sra. On the contrary, Ibn Ishq makes the claim that Muhammad
and the Qurn are part of Gods salvific design on the basis of the
attestation of Muhammad in the early scriptures and the relationship of correspondence between the earlier scriptures and the new
recitations. Wansbrough seemed to support Ibn Ishqs approach
elsewhere when he wrote, By its own express testimony, the Islamic
kerygma was an articulation...of the Biblical dispensation, and can
only thus be assessed.47
Conclusions
The Sra treats a remarkable number of the same verses of tampering which were identified through scholarly indication and through
the semantic field of tampering. Ibn Ishq provides a story of Gods
actions in history through the Arabian prophet, into which he inserts
Qurnic verses of interaction and controversy with the People of
the Book. From the other direction Muqtil, and to a certain extent
T abar, provide interpretation for the vague and contextless verses of
the Qurn by constructing above them a looming narrative frame-

47
45
46
221
work. In both cases, the narrative favors the scenario of a variety of

tampering actions revolving around an intact Torah.
In setting out to write salvation history for the Muslim community, Ibn Ishq was looking to portray continuity with the prophets of
the Jewish and Christian communities and to demonstrate attestation
from the scriptures of those communities. Continuity and attestation
are elements of a narrative framework which works against the concept of a corrupted scripture in the hands of the Jews of Muhammads
Madna. In fact, Ibn Ishq claims repeatedly that the book in the hands
of the Jews will attest to the prophet of Islam. The narrative framework
of the Sra excludes not only traditions of textual falsification, but also
the Qurnic verses which seem to trigger the accusation in Muqtils
and T abars commentaries.
Exegetes of scripture do not have the option to exclude verses from
their works of tafsr. However, they interpret the verses according to
independent structuressome internal and some external. In explaining the tampering verses, two internal structures which guide the exegete are the material in the Qurn on the earlier scriptures and the
constraints of the tafsr genre. For Muqtil and T abar, an important
external structure was the narrative framework of Jewish resistance
to the authority of the prophet of Islam. The examination of the 25
tampering passages plus many other passages in the commentaries
has provided many glimpses of the outlines of this narrative structure. Calders insight into the power of narrative in T abars exegetical
method is supported by an abundance of material in the commentaries. The narrative framework influences the two exegetes to interpret
the tampering verses mainly in the direction of actions of tampering
which assume an intact Torah in the hands of the Jews.
The influence of the narrative structure suggests a reason for why,
though Muqtil and T abar cite a number of falsification traditions,
these traditions remain isolated in the commentaries; and why the
treatment of the falsification accusation by T abar and his forebears
has been characterized by scholars as reluctant,48 cautious,49 guarded,50
careful,51 and gentle.52
Burton, The Corruption of the Scriptures, 105.
50
Khoury, Polemique byzantine contre lIslam, 210.
51
Hermann Stieglecker, Die muhammedanische Pentateuchkritik zu Beginn des 2.
Jahrtausends, Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 88 (1935), 75.
52
Fritsch, Islam und Christentum im Mittelalter, 57.
48
49
222
chapter seven
On the other hand, by contrast, Muqtil and T abar narrated a wide

variety of stories of tampering by the People of the Book with creativity
and great abandon. Most of the members of these communities of the
earlier scriptures are found to be deceptive and obstinate. The negative
qualities of Jews and Christians are highlighted in the commentaries
by actions of inappropriate response to the prophet of Islam despite
the clear information about him in the books in their possession.
chapter eight
Conclusion: Religious claims and human response

This study set out to demonstrate the development of the theme of
tampering with the earlier scriptures by exegetes in the formative
period of Qurnic commentary. This goal has been achieved by a
close examination and analysis of passages from the commentaries of
Muqtil and T abar. The passages chosen for special focus were exegetical treatments of the verses in the Qurn which have traditionally been
linked with the Islamic doctrine of the corruption of earlier scriptures.
A set of 25 tampering verses were found at the intersection of the
lists offered in scholarly studies of Muslim polemic and the Qurns
semantic field of tampering. The description and analysis of the exegesis of these verses in the two commentaries culminated in summary
statements of how the exegetes understood the Qurnic verbs in the
semantic field of tampering as well as several other scriptural expressions associated with the Muslim accusation of falsification.
Examination and analysis of the commentary passages has shown
that the exegetes of the formative period did not in the first instance
understand the Qurnic verses of tampering to mean the textual corruption of the earlier scriptures. Rather, they interpreted the verses to
mean a range of actions of tampering done mainly by Jews, mainly
contemporary with the prophet of Islam, and mainly related to the
Torah. The Qurnic verses themselves are not at all clear as to actor
and action, locus and object of tampering. The exegetes aim to identify
the vague and ambiguous references of the text of scripture. By the
time of T abar there is a clearly a range of interpretive traditions, and
some disagreement, about the meaning of the verses of tampering. The
exegetes explain several of the tampering verses by telling stories from
the ancient history of the Children of Israel. They explain other verses
by telling stories about the interaction between the Jews of Madna
and the prophet of Islam. The exegetes transmit traditions about the
Jewish alteration of the Torah. These traditions seem to be linked in
the commentaries with Q 2:79, and also attach to exegetical treatment
of 3:78 and 5:13. The alteration traditions, however, are overshadowed
in the commentaries by more dominant tampering traditions which
224
chapter eight
assume the existence of authentic scriptures in the hands of Jews and

Christians.
Muqtil and T abar understood the verses of tampering to refer to a
variety of actions by the People of the Book in response to the prophet
of Islam. Prominent among these is the concealment of information
about Muhammad in the Torah and the Gospel. Instead of publicizing this information to those of their community who cannot read,
the Jewish leaders remain silent about it, or deny it when asked. The
Jews also insult the prophet and his religion by a devious use of words.
They neglect the Torah commands and even lay some rulings aside
in preference to more lenient punishments. Instead of acknowledging the Torah commands, they deceive Muhammad and devise tests
designed to cast doubt on his prophethood. The understanding of
tah rf shown by Muqtil and T abar in their exegesis of most of the
tampering verses is neither the tah rf al-man nor the tah rf al-nass
of the classical discussions.
In answer to the question of why Muqtil and T abar should have
explained the tampering verses in this way, a number of independent
structures were identified and their operation explained. Three internal
structures which were seen to guide the exegetes in their interpretations
are the wordings of Muslim scripture, the contexts of the tampering
passages in the commentaries, and the constraints of the tafsr genre.
From outside the exegesis of scripture, a structure which influences
the interpretation of the tampering verses in these commentaries is the
narrative framework of Jewish response to the prophet of Islam.
The wording of the Qurn on the earlier scriptures makes it
difficultwith consistencyfor the exegetes to speak of those scriptures as if they exist in a corrupted state. The material on the earlier
scriptures in the Qurn is uniformly positive and respectful. Most of
this material appears in Sras 27. The earlier scriptures are portrayed
there as touchstones of authority and attestation. The explicit claim
repeated throughout these sras is that the revelation sent down to
the messenger confirms the revelation sent down before it and now
in existence with the People of the Book. In these very same sras,
and often in near contexts, occur verbs and expressions of tampering
which create a mood of anxiety about how the People of the Book are
handling the revelation which God granted to them. A survey of all of
these materials showed that favorable descriptions of the earlier scriptures alternate with verbs from the semantic field of tampering and a
number of idiomatic expressions associated with tampering.
conclusion: religious claims and human response
225
Exegesis of verses which contain these verbs and expressions shows

a preoccupation with actions of deception such as concealing words
of the earlier scriptures which describe the person and arrival of the
prophet of Islam. This is partly a function of the Qurnic material, both
in quantity and canonical sequence. For example, of the 11 tampering
verses in the second Sra, six contain verbs of concealing. But beyond
the words of scripture, the frequent exegetical portrayal of scenarios
of deception has an impact on other contexts in the commentaries.
Stories of deception are based on an understanding that the tampering
is related to an intact text of the earlier scriptures. When the exegetes
treat verses containing verbs of alteration, therefore, they may have the
concealing passages in mind and will possibly consider the question of
consistency. As seen above, the language of dishonesty and concealing
thus tends also to slip into the exegesis of the h arrafa verses.
This phenomenon of seeking consistency with both scriptural wordings and other exegetical contexts is an aspect of the constraints of the
tafsr genre. Muslim scholars writing in other genres are not bound
to ensure that their use of the Qurn matches what the Qurn says
about the subject in other passages. The polemicist, for example, will
use those scriptural materials which appear to best support his argument, and will simply leave other materials unmentioned. Even if the
polemicist is aware that the argument he is making does not match
the main thrust of scripture, he may be able to exploit the ignorance
of the wider context among his readers. The writer of a commentary
does not have this option. The scriptural materials which work against
a specious argument are necessarily contained in the same book. In the
case of the tampering motif, if the exegete wants to write at one point
that the Jews conceal the references to Muhammad in an intact Torah
in their hands, and at another point that the Torah in the hands of the
Jews is corrupt, he will escape the objections of an alert reader only
through great ingenuity.
Muqtil and T abar, however, not only explained the text of scripture according to internal structures, but also according to external
structures. Their exegesis of the tampering verses gave unmistakable
indications of larger concerns which go beyond the motif of tampering. An examination of literary devices in the commentaries in
chapter six revealed the existence of a narrative framework looming
over the exegesis of the individual tampering verses. The particular
narrative structure which emerges from the tampering passages in
the commentaries is the story of Jewish response to Muslim truth
226
chapter eight
claims concerning the prophethood of Muhammad and the provenance of the recitations which he brought. The Jewish response is
portrayed as mainly negative. The commentaries overriding concern to demonstrate the authority of Muhammad and its unreasonable rejection tends to put the tampering motif into the service of
the larger narrative. The question was then posed as to whether the
narrative structure may be seen to influence the interpretation of the
tampering verses.
A case for narrative influence was made with the assistance of scholarly insights into the exegetical method of Muqtil and the importance
of narrative for T abar. The intention to demonstrate the authority of
Muhammad, it was argued, would determine the exegetical approach
to the tampering materials in several respects. First of all, the attestation to the messenger and his message would be sought in the earlier
scriptures. Secondly, the rulings of the messenger would be seen to be
in line with the rulings of the earlier scriptures. Thirdly, the people
who possess the earlier scriptures would be made clearly culpable by
their disregard of the truth in their hands. Fourthly, those Jews who
respond appropriately to the prophet of Islam would be portrayed as
dealing honestly with the earlier scriptures as they knew them. This
case for narrative influence on the exegesis of the tampering verses was
tested on another early work, the Sra of Ibn Ishq, in chapter seven.
In the Sra, the narrative is the central concern, and verses from the
Qurn are brought in to serve the story. The treatment of the tampering verses in the Sra showed a clear concern to demonstrate all four
aspects of the above approach. It was observed that not only does the
Sra lack an accusation of the falsification of the earlier scriptures, but
that it does not even make use of the verses which are associated with
the accusation in the commentaries of Muqtil and T abar.
In this way, the narrative structure of Jewish response to Muhammad
was seen to be an essential part of the development of the tampering
motif in the commentaries. The exegetes took this external structure
seriously when they interpreted the tampering verses. They considered
a story of dishonesty aboutand rejection ofan existing scriptural
attestation to the prophetic status of Muhammad more helpful in
advancing the larger narrative concern than a story about falsification
of scripture. They developed the tampering motif according to this
larger narrative concern.
As for the passages in the commentaries that indicate an accusation of textual falsification, the exegetes were familiar with traditions
227
that employed verbs of deletion and addition to specify the tampering

action. Muqtil understood at Q 2:79 and 3:78 a Jewish action of erasing and writing. At the same verses, T abar attributed strong verbs of
deletion and addition to others, while himself using a verb of addition
at Q 3:78. The isolated nature of these traditions in the commentaries was noted. In the context of the 25 tampering passages in the two
commentaries examined in detail in this study, the accusations of textual falsification seem out of place. Indeed, the near contexts of those
two particular passages in the commentaries do not prepare the reader
for an accusation of textual falsification.
The exegetical method of Muqtil was clearly seen to be haggadic
or narrative. For Muqtil the story was always in view. Many of the
literary devices that he used in his exegesis have been identified and
illustrated in this study. However, T abars exegetical approach was
seen to be quite different from Muqtils. T abar demonstrates a lively
interest in the linguistic, juridical and theological implications of Muslim scripture. He pursues questions of Arabic syntax and grammar
that Muqtil passed over in silence. In the case of the tampering verses,
T abar provides helpful definitions of key terms where Muqtil seems
to assume understanding or at most simply glosses the terms. T abar
also provides a polyvalent reading of scripture through the citation of
many traditions, while Muqtils single interpretation of each verse
could be called monovalent.
The extent of the importance of narrative and its function in T abars
commentaryin comparison to that of Muqtilwas queried at the
beginning of chapter five. In T abars interpretation of the tampering
verses, narrative exegesis was seen to be his main methodology. The
most striking example of this is his extensive exegesis of Q 5:41. There
he recounts story after story of Muhammads ruling on adultery without pausing to discuss the legal questions. For other Muslim scholars,
the lack of a verse of stoning in the Qurn posed a difficult dilemma
between sunna and scripture. But T abar makes no mention of this
anomaly at Q 5:41. There is no cross reference to Q 24:2. In fact, the
only scripture referred to is the Torah, and the stories repeatedly show
Muhammad giving a judgment on adultery in line with that earlier
scripture. A major concern of these stories is certainly the authority
of the prophet of Islam. But it is not authority in the sense of demonstrating that sunna establishes Islamic Law. Rather, the narrative concern is to establish the prophetic authority of Muhammad by showing
his ruling to be coterminous with divine revelation in the past. In this
228
chapter eight
sense, T abars passages of narrative exegesis fulfill the same function

as those of Muqtil.
In summary, Muqtil and T abar did not in the first instance understand from the words of the Qurn that Jews and Christians had falsified their scriptures. The passages in which they make or transmit
accusations of falsification remain isolated and tentative. This raises
the question as to how the Muslim understanding changed to the
point where the doctrine of the corruption of the earlier scriptures
became the dominant Islamic position. The answer to this question
goes beyond the scope of this study. However, the results of this
study suggest directions which may be fruitfully pursued in further
research.
One reason for the change in approach may be the needs of polemic.
As the new religion emerged in the midst of the strong and established
traditions of Judaism and Christianity, there was a need for Islam to
set itself apart from the older traditions. Even here, early Muslim
polemic shows a concern to prove the claims of the new religion by
showing it to be a fulfillment of prophecy in the earlier scriptures. But
in the midst of heated exchanges with the conquered populations, in
which confident and well-educated Jews and Christians denied Muslim claims on the basis of their respective scriptures, it came to be seen
as extremely convenientno doubt for some irresistibleto accuse
the opponent of possessing a corrupted scripture. As the Christian
Arab al-Kindi is reported to have said when on the receiving end of
this polemic: I do not know that I have found an argument more
difficult to dislodge, more desperate to disarm than this which you
advance as to the corruption of the sacred text.1
Thus the claim was made that the Qurn had been perfectly preserved from the moment God sent it down on Muhammad, while the
People of the Book had allowed their books to become corrupt or
indeed had intentionally falsified the books themselves.
Another reason for the strengthening of accusations of textual falsification may be developments in the Islamic concept of authority.
The commentaries of Muqtil and T abar, and other early works such
as Ibn Ishqs Sra, are concerned to establish the prophetic author-
1
The Apology of al-Kindi, in The Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue: A collection
of documents from the first three Islamic centuries (632900 A.D.), N.A. Newman, ed.
(Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1993), 498.
229
ity of Muhammad by showing its attestation from divine revelation

in the past. A new religion which is emerging in the Middle East in
the midst of strong and ancient religious traditions will need to measure itself against what exists. The Muslim categories of deity, prophet
and book were the categories of Judaism and Christianity. In order
to be understood in this milieu, Muhammad must be portrayed as
a prophet in a line of prophets which stretches back through Biblical history to Adam. Initially, there was no way for Islam to establish
claims of authority other than in terms of the older religious traditions. If Islam wanted to establish authority in these terms, however,
it would need to refer to the revelations of the past and would tend
to speak of those revelations in a favorable way. An accusation of the
wholesale corruption of the earlier scriptures prior to the emergence of
Islam would eliminate the possibility of proof of the essential attestation which those scriptures provide.
If Islam then goes through a process of establishing authority in the
sunna of Muhammad, the approach to the earlier scriptures may change
correspondingly. The words and behavior of the prophet of Islam, as
interpreted from the h adth collections, become the foundation for
Islamic Law. The respect for earlier scriptures may continue, perhaps
because of knowledge of their descriptions in the Qurn. Indeed, they
may continue to be referenced, when convenient, in polemic to argue
that Muhammads advent was prophesied. However, the role of the
earlier scriptures as bases of authority has changed. The Muslim community has accepted the sunna as the completely adequate foundation.
The props which were earlier deemed essential are no longer needed.
They could be knocked out from under the edifice because the edifice
now stands firm on another foundation. In this scenarioin which the
need for attestation from the earlier scriptures disappearsMuslim
scholars are free to boldly advance the accusations of textual falsification among the exegetical traditions. Language of confirmation and
correspondence between the Qurn and the earlier scriptures can also
give way to language of abrogation and supersession.
A third possible explanation for the increasing frequency of accusations of textual falsification is the hardening of theological understandings in Islam. It was noted in chapter seven that T abar, after
considering many conflicting traditions about the identity of the son of
Abrahams intended sacrifice, asserted that the son was Isaac. Muqtil
before him had identified the son as Isaac without indicating awareness
of any other option. Both exegetes were free to consider the reliability
230
chapter eight
of stories from Jews, or reports about the narrative in the Torah, that
Isaac was the son involved. With time, however, the Islamic understanding of the identity of the son leaned heavily toward Ishmael. If
when this understanding became established as orthodoxMuslims
were to discover that the son in the Torah is unequivocally Isaac, how
would they tend to approach the text of the Torah?
This process of reasoning was in fact repeated frequently in the first
major statement of the doctrine of the corruption of the earlier scriptures, provided by Ibn H azm. The understanding that God must not
be described with anthropomorphic language had become established
in Muslim orthodoxy. Therefore, if the reader finds anthropomorphic
language for God in the present Torah, its text must necessarily be
corrupt, according to Ibn H azm. Similarly, the doctrine of the sinlessness of prophets had become part of orthodox Muslim theology. If the
Torah was then discovered to contain narratives of important Biblical
figures committing sins such as lying, adultery and murder, the Torah
must have been falsified. Ibn H azm pioneered the method of arguing
the corruption of the Bible by judging it according to doctrinaire Muslim theological understandings. Hartwig Hirschfeld characterized this
kind of criticism as dictated by a combination of dogma and odium
theologicum.2
In this way a greater familiarity with the actual contents of the Bible
among Muslims, which might have provided opportunities for irenic
interaction with Jews and Christians, became a source of harsh polemic
against the earlier scriptures and their allegedly careless custodians.
Ibn H azm thought it sufficient proof of corruption to quote Q 48:29
(That is their likeness in the Torah, and their likeness in the Gospel...) and note that nothing like this was to be found in the existing Torah and Gospel. But the major test of authenticity continued to
be the statement in Q 7:157 that the umm prophet could be found
recorded in the Torah and Gospel, and the claim that this referred to
Muhammad. Al-Maqdis made his case for the alteration of the text of
the Torah precisely to encourage Muslims who had heard from Jews
and Christians that Muhammad is not mentioned there.
Some scholars have suggested that the Islamic doctrine of the corruption of the earlier scriptures may have come from similar motifs in
operation among other religious communities in the Middle East. This
Mohammedan Criticism of the Bible, 234.
231
is an attractive proposal, and a reasonable one. Certainly Christian

scholars prior to Islam queried discrepancies between the Septuagint
and some other Jewish Greek translations. Samaritan scholars contested the text of the Hebrew Bible. Pharisees and Sadducees, Karaites and Ebionites also made accusations. But evidence to support the
claim that these controversies in other communities were adopted and
adapted by Muslim scholars has thus far not been supplied. Whatever
Ibn Ishq may have known in the second Islamic century about the
use of standard polemical topoi in other religious communities, he did
not in fact make an accusation of the falsification of earlier scriptures
in the Sra. In the case of Ibn H azm in the fifth Islamic century, the
motivation for his blistering polemic against the Bible seems to have
come not from what he heard about accusations of falsification among
Jews and Christians, but rather from what he heard about an attack on
the coherence of the Qurn by a Spanish Jew.
Other scholars have pursued indications in Muslim tradition that
there was sufficient uncertainty about the text of the Qurn among
Muslims to make outside influence on the doctrine of tah rf unnecessary. One axis of intra-Muslim polemic was Sh accusations that references to Al and his family had been deleted from Muslim scripture.
However, another source of anxiety was the very question of punishment for adultery which the exegetes of this study raised at Q 5:41. A
group of traditions reports Umar as saying that a verse of stoning
had been sent down upon the prophet of Islam, and that the Muslims
had recited it. The mystery of why this punishment did not then make
its way into the canonical text, particularly when there was general
agreement about its status as sunna, preoccupied a generation of legal
scholars. Surely John Burton is right when he finds refreshing irony
in witnessing one group of people who have replaced a flogging penalty that is in the Book of God by a stoning penalty, vilifying a second
group of people for replacing a stoning penalty that is in the Book of
God by a flogging penalty.3
An alternative theme which takes into account the dynamic of many
religious communities, and one which seems to better suit the findings of this research, is the theme of religious truth claims and human
response. A close study of the exegetical treatments of the tampering
verses has revealed a narrative structure of Jewish response to Muslim
Law and Exegesis, 282.
232
chapter eight
claims about the prophet of Islam. The tampering motif is a function of response to truth claims. The claims concern Muhammads
status as a true prophet and sent one from God, and the divine origin
of the recitations which he made. The right response, as portrayed
in the commentaries, is to believe in Muhammad, attest to the truth
of his claim to prophethood, acknowledge that what he brought was
from God, and follow and obey him. The claims are clear, and the
response seemingly straightforward. Some of the People of the Book
respond positively on the basis of the scriptures in their possession.
However, most of them disbelieve and deny the Muslim truth claims
about Muhammad. In other words, they are divided over him. At this
point the Muslim story is very close to what happens in other religious
contexts and, indeed, to what is recorded in major world scriptures.
This suggests a direction for future scholarly exploration. How do
communities of differing, even conflicting, faith commitments deal
with the rejection of their claims by others? How do they express
those truth claims in their source documents? How do they portray
the rejection of those claims by others? Are disbelievers shown to be
making a free response on the basis of adequate information? Is there
a respect for individual freedom to respond positively or negatively?
What do source documents or religious traditions put forward as the
consequence of rejection? Is consequence limited to a pronouncement
of the curse of deity, or an assurance of reckoning on the Judgment
Day? Or does it also include a threat of chastisement in this lifetime? If
so, what is the extent of this-worldly punishment for negative response
to truth claims: does it envision exile, imprisonment, assassination...
slaughter? These and other questions point toward not only possibilities for fruitful scholarly investigation, but also to the hope of meaningful interfaith conversation in todays world.
Bibliography
Abel, Armand. Bahr. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. H.A.R. Gibb et al.,
eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960, Vol. I, 922923.
Abbott, Nadia. Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri (II): Qurnic Commentary and Tradition. Oriental Institute Publications 76. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967.
Abd al-Razzq ibn Hammm ibn Nfi al-Sann. Tafsr al-Qurn al-azz, Tafsr
Abd al-Razzq. Beirut: Dr al-Marifa, 1991, two volumes.
Accad, Martin. Corruption and/or Misinterpretation of the Bible: The Story of the
Islmic Usage of Tahrf. Theological Review 24/2 (2003), 6797.
. The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth Centuries:
An Exegetical Inventorial Table (four parts). Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations
14 (2003), 6791, 205220, 337352, 45979.
. Muhammads Advent as the Final Criterion for the Authenticity of the JudeoChristian Tradition: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyas Hidyat al-H ayr f Ajwibat
al-Yahd wa-l-Nasr. In The Three Rings: Textual Studies in the Historical Trialogue of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Barbara Roggema, Marcel Poorthuis and
Pim Valkenberg, eds. Leuven: Peeters, 2005, 217236.
Adams, Charles J. Qurn: The Text and Its History. The Encyclopedia of Religion.
Mircea Eliade, ed. New York: Macmillan, 1987, Vol. 12, 156176.
Adang, Camilla. Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible from Ibn Rabban
to Ibn Hazm. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.
. Medieval Muslim Polemics Against the Jewish Scriptures. In Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions: A Historical Survey. Jacques Waardenburg, ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999, 143159.
. A Jewish Reply to Ibn H azm: Solomon b. Adrets Polemic Against Islam. In
Judos y musulmanes en al-Andalus y el Magreb: Contactos intelectuales. Maribel
Fierro, ed. Madrid: Casa de Velzquez, 2002, 179209.
. Torah. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, gen. ed. Leiden:
Brill, 2006, Vol. 5, 300311.
Adler, William. The Jews as Falsifiers: Charges of Tendentious Emendations in AntiJewish Christian Polemics. In Translations of Scripture. Suppl. to Jewish Quarterly
Review (1990), 127.
Ahrens, Karl. Christliches im Qoran: eine Nachlese. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 84 (1930), 1568.
Allouche, I.S. Un trait de polmique christiano-musulmane au IXe sicle. Hespris
26 (1939), 123155.
Ambros, Arne A. Hre, ohne zu hren zu Koran 4, 46(48). Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 136 (1986), 1522.
Ananikian, M.H., trans. Tahrif or the Alteration of the Bible According to the Moslems. The Muslim World 14 (1924), 6184. [Abridged translation of Di Matteo, I.
Il tahrf od alterazione della Bibbia secondo i musulmani. Bessarione 38 (1922),
64111, 22360.]
Anawati, Georges C. Polmique, apologie et dialogue islamo-chrtiens: positions
classiques mdivales et positions contemporaines. Euntes Docete XXII (1969),
375451.
Andrae, Tor. Les origines de lIslam et le Christianisme. Paris: Librairie dAmrique et
dOrient Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1955.
Arnaldez, Roger. Ibn H azm. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. B. Lewis
et al., eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971, Vol. III, 790799.
234
bibliography
. Controverse dIbn Hazm contre Ibn Nagrila le Juif. Revue de lOccident musulman et de la Mditerrane 1314 (1973), 4148.
Augapfel, Julius. Das kitb im Qurn. Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes xxix (1915), 384393.
Ayoub, Mahmoud M. The Quran and Its Interpreters. Albany: State University of New
York Press, 2 vols., 1984 and 1992.
. Uzayr in the Quran and Muslim Tradition. In Studies in Islamic and Judaic
Traditions. W.M. Brinner and S.D. Ricks, eds. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986, 318.
. The Word of God in Islam. Greek Orthodox Theological Review 31 (1986),
6978.
. The Speaking Qurn and the Silent Qurn: A Study of the Principles and
Development of Imm Sh tafsr. In Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qurn. Andrew Rippin, ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988, 177198.
Bar-Asher, Meir M. Variant Readings and Additions of the Imm-Sha to the
Quran. Israel Oriental Studies 13 (1993), 3974.
. Scripture and Exegesis in Early Imm Shiism. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
. Shism and the Qurn. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe,
gen. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2004, Vol. 4, 593604.
Beaumont, Mark. Ammr al-Basr on the Alleged Corruption of the Gospels. In The
Bible in Arab Christianity. David Thomas, ed. Leiden: Brill, 2007, 241255.
Beck, P. Hildebrand. Vorsehung and Vorherbestimmung in der theologischen Literatur
der Byzantiner. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 114. Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1937.
Becker, C.H. Christliche Polemik und islamische Dogmenbildung. Zeitschrift fr
Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archologie xxvi (1912), 175195.
Bellamy, James A. Some Proposed Emendations to the Text of the Koran. Journal
of the American Oriental Society 13 (1993), 562573.
Bell, Richard. Muhammads Knowledge of the Old Testament. In Presentation
Volume to William Barron Stevenson (Studia Semitica et Orientalia II). C.J. Mullo
Weir, ed. Glasgow: Glasgow University Oriental Society, 1945, 120.
Berg, Herbert. T abars Exegesis of the Qurnic Term al-kitb. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 63 (1995), 761774.
. The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam: The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2000.
Birkeland, Harris. Old Muslim Opposition Against Interpretation of the Koran. Oslo: I
Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad, 1955.
Bishop, E.F.F. Al-Tahrif. Bulletin of the Henry Martyn School of Islamic Studies
(AprilJune 1956), 915.
Bosworth, C.E. Al-T abar. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. P.J. Bearman
et al., eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000, Vol. X, 1115.
Bwering, Gerhard. Chronology and the Qurn. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane
Dammen McAuliffe, gen. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2001, Vol. 1, 316335.
Bouamama, Ali. La littrature polmique musulmane contre le Christianisme depuis ses
origines jusquau XIIIe sicle. Algiers: Entreprise nationale du Livre, 1988.
Brinner, William M. An Islamic Decalogue. In Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions. William M. Brinner and Stephen D. Ricks, eds. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986,
6784.
Browne, Lawrence E. The Patriarch Timothy and the Caliph al-Mahdi. The Muslim
World 21 (1931), 3845.
Brunner, Rainer. Die Schia und die Koranflschung. Wrzburg: Deutsche Morgenlndische Gesellschaft, 2001.
. The Dispute About the Falsification of the Qurn Between Sunns and Shs
in the 20th Century. In Studies in Arabic and Islam. S. Leder with H. Kilpatrick,
B. Martel-Thoumian and H. Schnig, eds. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2002, 437446.
bibliography
235
Bryan, Joseph D. Mohammeds Controversy with Jews and Christians. The Muslim
World 9 (1919), 385415.
Buhl, Frants. Tahrf. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. M.Th. Houtsma et al., eds. Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1934, Vol. IV, 618619.
al-Bukhr. Sah h al-Bukhr. Cairo: Al-Arabi, 1955, eight volumes.
Burton, John. The Meaning of ihs n. Journal of Semitic Studies xix (1974), 4775.
. The Origin of the Islamic Penalty for Adultery. Transactions of the Glasgow
University Oriental Society 26 (197576), 1627.
. The Collection of the Qurn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
. Quranic Exegesis. In Religion, Learning and Science in the Abbasid Period.
M.J.L. Young et al., eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 4055.
. The Corruption of the Scriptures. Occasional Papers of the School of Abbasid
Studies 4 (1992, publ. 1994), 95106.
. Law and Exegesis: The Penalty for Adultery in Islam. In Approaches to the
Qurn. G.R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, eds. London: Routledge, 1993,
269284.
. Muhsa n. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. C.E. Bosworth et al., eds.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993, Vol. VII, 474475.
Calder, Norman. The Umm in Early Islamic Juridic Literature. Der Islam 67 (1990),
111123.
. Tafsr from T abar to Ibn Kathr: Problems in the Description of a Genre,
Illustrated with Reference to the Story of Abraham. In Approaches to the Qurn.
G.R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, eds. London: Routledge, 1993, 101
140.
Calder, Norman, Jawid Mojaddedi and Andrew Rippin, eds. and trans. Classical Islam:
A Sourcebook of Religious Literature. London: Routledge, 2003.
Carra de Vaux, B. Indjl. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. M.Th. Houtsma et al., eds.
Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1927, Vol. II, 501504.
Carra de Vaux, B., and G.C. Anawati. Indjl. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. B. Lewis et al., eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971, Vol. III, 12051208.
Caspar, R., and J.-M. Gaudeul. Textes de la tradition musulmane concernant le tahrf
(falsification) des critures. Islamochristiana 6 (1980), 61104.
Charfi, Abdelmajid. Christianity in the Qurn Commentary of T abar. Islamochristiana 6 (1980), 10548.
. La fonction historique de la polmique islamochrtienne lpoque abbasside.
In Christian Arabic Apologetics during the Abbasid Period (7501258). Samir Khalil
Samir & Jrgen S. Nielsen, eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994, 4456.
. Polmiques islamo-chrtiennes lpoque mdivale. In Scholarly Approaches
to Religion, Interreligious Perceptions and Islam. Jacques Waardenburg, ed. Bern:
Peter Lang, 1995, 261274.
Chipman, Leigh N.B. Adam and the Angels: An Examination of Mythic Elements in
Islamic Sources. Arabica XLIX (2002), 429455.
Cooper, J., trans. The Commentary on the Qurn by Ab Jafar Muh ammad ibn Jarr
al-T abar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Crone, P. A Note on Muqtil b. Hayyn and Muqtil b. Sulaymn. Der Islam 74
(1997), 238249.
Dclais, Jean-Louis. Les premiers Musulmans face la tradition biblique: trois rcits sur
Job. Paris: LHarmattan, 1996.
Denny, Frederick. Corruption. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, gen. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2001, Vol. 1, 439440.
Di Matteo, I. Confutazione contro i Cristiani delo Zaydita al-Qsim b. Ibrhm.
Rivista degli Studi Orientali 9 (19212), 301364.
. Il tahrf od alterazione della Bibbia secondo i musulmani. Bessarione 38
(1922), 64111, 22360.
236
bibliography
. Le pretese contraddizioni della S. Scrittura secondo Ibn H azm. Bessarione 39

(1923), 77127.
Eliash, J. The ite Qurn: A Reconsideration of Goldzihers Interpretation. Arabica 16 (1969), 1524.
Ess, Josef van. Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra: eine
Geschichte des religisen Denkens in frhen Islam. Berlin, 19911997.
Faizer, Rizwi S. Muhammad and the Medinan Jews: A Comparison of the Texts of
Ibn Ishaqs Kitb Srat Rasl Allh with al-Waqidis Kitb al-Maghz. International Journal of Middle East Studies 28 (1996), 463489.
al-Farr, Ab Zakariyy Yahy b. Ziyd. Kitb man al-Qurn. Ahmad Ysuf Najt
and Muhammad Al al-Najjr, eds. Beirut: Dr al-Sarr, n.d., three volumes.
Forster, Regula. Methoden arabischer Qurnexegese: Muqtil ibn Sulaymn, atT abar und Abdarrazzq al-Qshn zu Q 53,118. In Sinnvermittlung: Studien zur
Geschichte von Exegese und Hermeneutik. I.P. Michel and H. Weder, eds. Zurich:
Pano, 2000, 385443.
. Methoden mittelalterlicher arabischer Qurnexegese am Beispiel von Q 53, 118.
Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2001.
Fritsch, Erdmann. Islam und Christentum im Mittelalter: Beitrge zur Geschichte der
muslimischen Polemik gegen das Christentum in arabischer Sprache. Breslau: Verlag
Mller & Seiffert, 1930.
Gairdner, W.H.T., Iskandar Abdul-Mash, and Sali Abdul-Ahad. The Verse of Stoning in the Bible and the Qurn. Madras: The Christian Literature Society for India,
1910.
Garca Gmez, Emilio. Polmica religiosa entre Ibn Hazm e Ibn al-Nagrla. AlAndalus 4 (19361939), 128.
Gtje, Helmut. The Qurn and Its Exegesis: Selected Texts with Classical and Muslim
Interpretations. Alford T. Welch, trans. Oxford: Oneworld, 1996 (orig. pub. 1976).
Gaudeul, J.M. Encounters & Clashes: Islam and Christianity in History. Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e dIslamistica, 2000, two volumes.
Gil, Moshe. The Origin of the Jews of Yathrib. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam
4 (1984), 20324.
. The Medinan Opposition to the Prophet. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam
10 (1987), 6596.
Gilliot, Claude. Les dbuts de lexgse coranique. Revue du monde musulman
et de la Mditerrane 58 (1990), 82100. English translation: The beginnings of
quranic exegesis. In The Quran. Formative Interpretation. Andrew Rippin, ed.
Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum (The Formation of the Classical Islamic World, 25),
1999, 139.
. Exgse, langue, et thologie en Islam. Lexgse coranique de Tabari (m. 311/923).
Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin, 1990.
. Muqtil, grand exgte, traditionniste et thologien maudit. Journal asiatique
279 (1991), 3992.
. Mythe, rcit, histoire du salut dans le commentaire coranique de Tabari. Journal asiatique 282 (1994), 237270.
. Muhammad, le Coran et les contraintes de lhistoire. In The Quran as Text.
Stefan Wild, ed. Leiden, Brill, 1996, 326.
. Lexgse coranique: bilan partiel dune dcennie. Studia Islamica 85 (1997),
15562.
. Exegesis of the Qurn: Classical and Medieval. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn.
Jane Dammen McAuliffe, gen. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2002, Vol. 2, 99124.
. Un verset manquant du Coran ou rput tel. In En hommage au Pre Jacques
Jomier, O.P. Marie-Thrse Urvoy, ed. Paris: Cerf, 2002, 73100.
Goddard, Hugh. The Persistence of Medieval Themes in Modern Christian-Muslim
Discussion in Egypt. In Christian Arabic Apologetics during the Abbasid Period
bibliography
237
(7501258). Samir Khalil Samir & Jrgen S. Nielsen, eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994,
225237.
Goldfeld, Yeshayahu. Muqtil Ibn Sulaymn. Bar-Ilan Arabic and Islamic Studies 2
(1978), 1330.
. The Illiterate Prophet (nab umm): An Inquiry into the Development of a
Dogma in Islamic Tradition. Der Islam 57 (1980), 5867.
. The Development of Theory on Qurnic Exegesis in Islamic Scholarship. Studia Islamica 67 (1988), 527.
Goldziher, Ignaz. ber muhammedanische Polemik gegen Ahl al-Kitab. Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft xxxii (1878), 341387.
. Die Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslegung. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1920.
. Muslim Studies. Vol. Two. Trans. C.R. Barber and S.M. Stern. London: George
Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1971.
Goitein, S.D. Ban Isrl. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. H.A.R. Gibb
et al., eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960, Vol. I, 10201022.
Griffith, S.H. Ammr al-Basrs Kitb al-Burhn: Christian Kalm in the First Abbasid
Century. Le Muson 96 (1983), 145181.
. The Gospel in Arabic: An Inquiry into its Appearance in the First Abbasid
Century. Oriens Christianus 69 (1985), 126167.
. Gospel. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, gen. ed. Leiden:
Brill, 2001, Vol. 2, 342343.
Guillaume, Alfred. Theodore Abu Qurra as Apologist. The Muslim World 15 (1925),
4251.
. The Version of the Gospels Used in Medina circa 700 A.D. Al-Andalus 15
(1950), 289296.
. New Light on the Life of Muhammad. Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph
No. 1. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1960.
Guillaume, Alfred, trans. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ish qs Srat rasl
Allh. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1967.
Guthrie, A., and E.F.F. Bishop. The Paraclete, Almunhamanna and Ahmad. The
Muslim World 41 (1951), 251256.
Gwynne, Rosalind W. The Neglected Sunnah: Sunnat Allh (The Sunnah of God).
American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 10 (1993), 455463.
Haddad, M.Y.S. Arab Perspectives of Judaism. A Study of Image Formation in the Writings of Muslim Arab Authors 19481978. Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, 1984.
Hawting, G.R. irk and Idolatry in Monotheist Polemic. Israel Oriental Studies 17
(1997), 107126.
. The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 48.
Hawting, G.R., and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, eds. Approaches to the Qurn. London:
Routledge, 1993.
Heath, Peter. Creative Hermeneutics: A Comparative Analysis of Three Islamic
Approaches. Arabica XXXVI (1989), 173210.
Heller, Bernard. The Relation of the Aggada to Islamic Legends. The Muslim World
xxiv (1934), 281286.
Hinds, M. Maghz and Sra in Early Islamic Scholarship. In La vie du prophte
Mahomet. (Colloque de Strasbourg, octobre 1980). Paris: Presses universitaires de
France, 1983, 5766.
Hirschfeld, H. Historical and Legendary Controversies Between Mohammad and the
Rabbis. Jewish Quarterly Review x (18978), 100116.
. Mohammedan Criticism of the Bible. Jewish Quarterly Review xiii (19001),
22240.
. New Researches into the Composition and Exegesis of the Qoran. London: Royal
Asiatic Society, 1902.
238
bibliography
Horovitz, Josef. Zur Muhammadlegende. Der Islam 5 (1914), 4153.

. Tawrt. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. M.Th. Houtsma et al., eds. Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1934, Vol. IV, 706707.
. Zabr. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. M.Th. Houtsma et al., eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1934, Vol. IV, 11841185.
. Abd Allh ibn Salm. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. H.A.R. Gibb
et al., eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960, Vol. I, 52.
Horovitz, J., and R. Firestone. Zabr. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition.
P.J. Bearman et al., eds. Leiden: Brill, 2002, Vol. XI, 372373.
Horst, Heribert. Zur berlieferung im Korankommentar at-T abars. Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 103 (1953), 290307.
Hoyland, Robert G. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Princeton, N.J.: The Darwin
Press, 1997.
Hughes, Aaron. Presenting the Past: The Genre of Commentary in Theoretical Perspective. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 15 (2003), 148168.
Ibn Ishq. Srat al-Nab. Muhammad Muhy al-Dn Abd al-Hamd, ed. Cairo: Maktaba Muhammad Al Sabh wa Awld, 1963, four volumes.
Ibn Khaldun. The Muqaddimah. Franz Rosenthal, trans. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967, three volumes.
Ibn Sad, Muhammad. al-T abaqt al-kubr. Beirut: Dr Sdir, 1957, eight volumes.
Ibn Taymiyya. al-Jawb al-sah h li-man baddala dn al-Mash . A Muslim Theologians
Response to Christianity. Thomas F. Michel, ed. and trans. Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan,
1984.
Izutsu, Toshihiko. Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qurn. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1966.
Jeffery, Arthur. Ab Ubaid on the Verses Missing from the Qurn. Muslim World
28 (1938), 6165.
. Ghevonds Text of the Correspondence Between Umar II and Leo III. Harvard
Theological Review xxxvii (1944), 269321.
. The Qurn as Scripture. Muslim World 40 (1950), 4155, 106134, 185206,
257275.
. The Present Status of Qurnic Studies. Middle East Institute, Report on Current Research (Spring 1957), 116.
Keating, S.T. Refuting the Charge of tah rf: Abu Ritah (d. ca. 835 CE) and His First
risla on the Holy Trinity. In Ideas, Images, and Methods of Portrayal: Insights into
Classical Literature and Islam. Sebastion Gnther, ed. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Khoury, Adel-Thodore. Polmique byzantine contre lIslam (VIIIeXIIIe S.). Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1972.
Kinberg, Leah. Insolence and Obstinacy. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen
McAuliffe, gen. ed., Leiden: Brill, 2002, Vol. 2, 541543.
Kister, M.J. The Market of the Prophet. Journal of the Economic and Social History
of the Orient 8 (1965), 272276.
. H addith an ban isrla wa-l haraja: A Study of an Early Tradition. Israel
Oriental Studies 2 (1972), 21539.
. The Srah Literature. In Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period.
A.F.L. Beeston et al., eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 352367.
. The Massacre of the Ban Qurayza: A Re-examination of a Tradition. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 8 (1986), 6196.
Ko, Mehmet Akif. A Comparison of the References to Muqtil b. Sulaymn (150/767)
in the Exegesis of al-Thalab (427/1036) with Muqtils Own Exegesis. Journal of
Semitic Studies 53 (2008), 69101.
Kohlberg, E. Some Notes on the Immite Attitude to the Qurn. In Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition. S.M. Stern et al., eds. Columbia, SC: University of
South Carolina Press, 1972, 209224.
bibliography
239
Kohlberg, Etan, and Mohammed Ali Amir-Moezzi. Rvlation et falsification. Introduction ldition du Kitb al-Qirt dal-Sayyr. Journal asiatique 293 (2005),
663722.
Kohlberg, Etan, and Mohammed Ali Amir-Moezzi, eds. Revelation and Falsification,
The Kitb al-Qirt of Ah mad b. Muh ammad al-Sayyr. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Knstlinger, Dawid. Kitb und ahlu l-kitb im Kurn. Rocznik Orientalistyczny
4 (1926), 238247.
. Raina. Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies London Institution 5 (1928
30), 877882.
. Die Namen der Gottes-Schriften im Qurn. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 8 (1937),
7284.
Lane, Edward William. An Arabic-English Lexicon: Derived from the Best and Most
Copious Eastern Sources. London: Williams and Norgate, 1863.
Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava. Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism. Prince
ton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992.
. Tahrf and Thirteen Torah Scrolls. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 19
(1995), 8188.
. Some Neglected Aspects of Medieval Muslim Polemics against Christianity.
Harvard Theological Review 89 (1996), 6184.
. Tahrf. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. P.J. Bearman et al., eds.
Leiden: Brill, 2000, Vol. X, 111112.
. Tawrt. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. P.J. Bearman et al., eds.
Leemhuis, Fred. Origins and Early Development of the tafsr Tradition. In
Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qurn. Andrew Rippin, ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988, 1330.
. The Koran and its Exegesis: From Memorising to Learning. In Centres of
Learning: Learning and Location in Pre-modern Europe and the Near East. Jan Willem Drijvers and A.A. MacDonald, eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995, 91102.
. Discussion and Debate in Early Commentaries of the Qurn. In With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Barry D. Walfish, and Joseph W. Goering, eds. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003, 320328.
Lewis, Phillip. Depictions of Christianity within British Islamic Institutions. In
Islamic Interpretations of Christianity. Lloyd Ridgeon, ed. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2001, 204230.
Lichtenstadler, Ilse. Quran and Quran Exegesis. Humaniora Islamica 2 (1974),
328.
Loth, O. T abars Korancommentar. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen
Gesellschaft xxxv (1881), 588628.
Lowin, S. Revision and Alteration. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen
McAuliffe, gen. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2004, Vol. 4, 448451.
Madigan, Daniel. Book. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, gen.
ed. Leiden: Brill, 2001, Vol. 1, 242251.
. The Qurns Self-Image: Writing and Authority in Islams Scripture. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2001.
Margoliouth, D.S. On The Book of Religion and Empire by Al b. Rabban al-T abar.
Proceedings of the British Academy 16 (1930), 165182.
Marcinkowski, Muhammad Ismail. Some Reflections on Alleged Twelver Shiite Attitudes Toward the Integrity of the Quran. The Muslim World 91 (2001), 137153.
McAuliffe, Jane Dammen. Quranic Hermeneutics: The Views of al-T abar and Ibn
Kathr. In Approaches to the History of Interpretation of the Quran. Andrew Rippin, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988, 4662.
. Qurnic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
240
bibliography
. The Qurnic Context of Muslim Biblical Scholarship. Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 7 (1996), 141158.
. Christians in the Qurn and Tafsr. In Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions:
A Historical Survey. Jacques Waardenburg, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999, 105121.
. The Prediction and Prefiguration of Muhammad. In Bible and Qurn: Essays
in Scriptural Intertextuality. John C. Reeves, ed. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003, 107131.
Merrill, John Ernest. On the Tractate of John of Damascus on Islam. The Muslim
World 41 (1951), 8897.
Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Views of Islam. Dumberton Oaks Papers 18 (1964),
115132.
Mingana, A. The Apology of Timothy the Patriarch before the Caliph Mahdi. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 12 (1928), 137, 147226.
Mir, Mustansir. Dictionary of Qurnic Terms and Concepts. New York: Garland Publishing, 1987.
. The Sra as a Unity: A Twentieth Century Development in Qurn Exegesis. In
Approaches to the Qurn. G.R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, eds. London:
Routledge, 1993, 211224.
Modarressi, Hossein. Early Debates on the Integrity of the Qurn: A Brief Survey.
Studia Islamica 77 (1993), 539.
Muir, William. The Corn: Its Composition and Teaching; And the Testimony it Bears
to the Holy Scriptures. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1878.
. The Apology of Al Kindy. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
1887.
Muqtil ibn Sulaymn. Tafsr Muqtil ibn Sulaymn. Abd Allh Mahmd Shihta, ed.
Beirut: Massasat al-Trkh al-Arabiyya, 2002, 5 volumes.
Newby, Gordon Darnell. Forgery. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen
Nickel, Gordon. Muqtil ibn Sulaymn on the Verses of Tampering. Islamic Culture 76/3 (2002), 125.
. We Will Make Peace With You: The Christians of Najrn in Muqtils Tafsr
Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 3 (2006), 118.
. Early Muslim Accusations of Tahrf: Muqtil ibn Sulaymns Commentary on
Key Qurnic Verses. In The Bible in Arab Christianity. David Thomas, ed. Leiden:
Brill, 2007, 207223.
. A Common Word in Context: Toward the Roots of Polemics between Christians and Muslims in Early Islam. Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 6 (2009),
167200.
. The Language of Love in Qurn and Gospel. In Sacred Text: Explorations
in Lexicography. Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala and Angel Urban, eds. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang, 2009, 223248.
. Conquest and Controversy: Intertwined Themes in the Islamic Interpretive Tradition. Numen 58, 2/3 (2011). (forthcoming)
. Self-evident Truths of Reason: Challenges to Clear Thinking in the Tafsr
al-Kabr of Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz. Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 22 (2011).
(forthcoming)
Nickel, Gordon, and Andrew Rippin. The Qurn. In The Islamic World. Andrew
Rippin, ed. London: Routledge, 2008, 145156.
Nwyia, Paul. Exgse coranique et langage mystique: nouvel essai sur le lexique technique des mystiques musulmans. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq diteurs, 1970.
Obermann, Julian. Koran and Agada: The Events at Mount Sinai. The American
Journal of Semitic Languages lvii (1941), 2348.
OShaughnessy, Thomas. The Koranic Concept of the Word of God. Rome: Pontificio
Istituto Biblico, 1948.
bibliography
241
Paret, Rudi. al-T abar, Ab Djafar Muhammad ibn Djarr. The Encyclopaedia of
Islam. M.Th. Houtsma et al., eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1934, Vol. IV, 578579.
. Der Koran: Kommentar und Konkordanz. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer,
1980.
Pedersen, Johannes. The Islamic Preacher: wz, mudhakkir, qss. In Ignace Goldziher Memorial Volume. Samuel Lwinger and Joseph Somogyi, eds. Budapest: Globus, 1948, Vol. 1, 226251.
. The Criticism of the Islamic Preacher. Die Welt des Islams ii (1953), 215231.
Pellat, Ch. Kss. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. C.E. Bosworth et al., eds.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978, Vol. IV, 733735.
Perlmann, Moshe. A Legendary Story of Kab al-Ahbrs Conversion to Islam. In
The Joshua Starr Memorial Volume: Studies in History and Philology. Abraham G.
Duker et al., eds. New York: Conference on Jewish Relations, 1953, 8599.
. Another Kab al-Ahbr Story. Jewish Quarterly Review xlv (1954), 4858.
. The Medieval Polemics between Islam and Judaism. In Religion in a Religious
Age. S.D. Goitein, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Association for Jewish Studies, 1974,
103138.
. Muslim-Jewish Polemics. The Encyclopedia of Religion. Mircea Eliade, ed. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987, Vol. 11, 396402.
Plessner, M., and A. Rippin. Muktil b. Sulaymn. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New
Edition. C.E. Bosworth et al., eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993, Vol. VII, 508509.
Powers, David S. Reading/Misreading One Anothers Scriptures: Ibn H azms Refutation of Ibn Nagrella al-Yahd. In Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions. William
M. Brinner and Stephen D. Ricks, eds. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986, 109121.
Pulcini, Theodore. Exegesis as Polemical Discourse: Ibn H azm on Jewish and Christian
Scriptures. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.
Radscheit, Matthias. Die koranische Herausforderung: Die tah add-Verse im Rahmen
der Polemikpassagen des Korans. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1996.
. Provocation. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, gen. ed.
Leiden: Brill, 2004, Vol. 4, 308314.
. Word of God. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, gen. ed.
Leiden: Brill, 2006, Vol. 5, 541548.
Rahbar, Daud. Reflections on the Tradition of Quranic Exegesis. The Muslim World
52 (1962), 296307.
Rahman, H. The Conflicts Between the Prophet and the Opposition in Madina. Der
Islam 62 (1985), 26097.
Raven, Wim. Sra. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. C.E. Bosworth et al.,
eds. Leiden, Brill, 1997, Vol. IX, 660663.
. Sra and the Qurn, Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe,
gen. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2006, Vol. 5, 2951.
al-Rz, Fakhr al-Dn. Mafth al-ghayb, al-Tafsr al-kabr. Beirut: Dr Ihy al-Turth
al-Arab, 1973, 32 volumes.
Resnick, I.M. The Falsification of Scripture and Medieval Christian and Jewish
Polemics. Medieval Encounters 2 (1996), 344380.
Riddell, Peter G. The Transmission of Narrative-based Exegesis in Islam: al-Baghaws
Use of Stories in his Commentary on the Qurn, and a Malay Descendent. In
Islam: Essays on Scripture, Thought and Society. A Festschrift in Honour of Anthony
H. Johns. Peter G. Riddell and Tony Street, eds. Leiden: Brill, 1997, 5780.
Rippin, Andrew. The Present Status of Tafsr Studies. The Muslim World 72 (1982),
224238.
. Literary Analysis of Qurn, Tafsr, and Sra: The Methodologies of John Wansbrough. In Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies. Richard C. Martin, ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1985, 151163.
. Al-T abar. The Encyclopedia of Religion. Mircea Eliade, ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1987), Vol. 13, 322.
242
bibliography
. Tafsr. The Encyclopedia of Religion. Mircea Eliade, ed. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1987, Vol. 14, 236244.
. The Function of asbb al-nuzl in Qurnic Exegesis. Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 51 (1988), 120.
. Interpreting the Bible Through the Qurn. In Approaches to the Quran.
G.R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, eds. London: Routledge, 1993, 249259.
. Studying Early tafsr Texts. Der Islam 72 (1995), 310323.
. Quranic Studies, Part IV: Some Methodological Notes. Method & Theory in the
Study of Religion 9/1 (1997), 3946.
. Three Commentaries on Surat al-Fatiha, The Opening. In Windows on the
House of Islam: Muslim Sources on Spirituality and Religious Life. John Renard, ed.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998, 2934.
. Introduction. In The Qurn: Formative Interpretation. Andrew Rippin, ed.
Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1999, xixxvii.
. Tafsr. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. P.J. Bearman et al., eds.
. Occasions of Revelation, Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, gen. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2003, Vol. 3, 569573.
. Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Third Edition. London: Routledge,
2005.
Rippin, Andrew, ed. Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qurn.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1988.
Robinson, Neal. Discovering the Quran: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text.
London: SCM Press, 1996.
Rosenthal, Franz. General Introduction: From the Creation to the Flood, Volume 1 of
The History of al-T abar. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1953.
Roth, Norman. Forgery and Abrogation of the Torah: A Theme in Muslim and Christian Polemic in Spain. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research
54 (1987), 203236.
Rubin, Uri. The Assassination of Kab ibn al-Ashraf. Oriens 32 (1990), 6571.
. The Eye of the Beholder: The Life of Muh ammad as Viewed by the Early Muslims:
A Textual Analysis. Princeton: Darwin, 1995.
. Between Bible and Qurn: The Children of Israel and the Islamic Self-Image.
Princeton: Darwin, 1999.
. Jews and Judaism. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, gen.
Saeed, Abdullah. The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures. The
Muslim World 92 (2002), 419436.
Sahas, Daniel J. John of Damascus on Islam: The Heresy of the Ishmaelites. Leiden,
E.J. Brill, 1972.
Saleh, Walid A. The Formation of the Classical Tafsr Tradition: The Qurn Commentary of al-Thalab (d. 427/1035). Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Schacht, Joseph. Zin. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. M.Th. Houtsma et al., eds.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1934, Vol. IV, 12271228.
. Ahmad. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. H.A.R. Gibb et al., eds.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960, Vol. I, 267.
Schippers, Arie. Psalms. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, gen.
Schirrmacher, Christine. Muslim Apologetics and the Agra Debates of 1854: A Nineteenth-century Turning Point. Bulletin of the Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic
Studies 13 (1994), 7484.
Schmidtke, Sabine, Ibrahim Marazka, and Reza Pourjavady, eds. Samawal al-Maghribis (d. 570/ 1175) Ifham al-yahud: The Early Recension. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz,
2006.
bibliography
243
Schler, Marco. Sra and Tafsr: Muhammad al-Kalb on the Jews of Medina. In
The Biography of Muhammad: The Issue of the Sources. Harald Motzki, ed. Leiden:
Brill, 2000, 1848.
. Opposition to Muhammad. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, gen. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2003, Vol. 3, 576580.
Schreiner, M. Zur Geschichte der Polemik zwischen Juden und Muhammedanern.
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft xlii (1888), 591675.
Schreiner, Stefan. Der Dekalog in der jdischen Tradition und im Koran. Kairos 23
(1981), 1730.
Seale, M.S. Quran and Bible: Studies in Interpretation and Dialogue. London: Croom
Helm, 1978.
Sell, Edward. The Historical Development of the Qurn. Madras: S.P.C.K. Press, 1898.
Sellheim, R. Prophet, Caliph und Geschichte: Die Muhammed-Biographie des Ibn
Ishq. Oriens xviiixix (19657), 3391.
Sfar, Mondher. Le Coran est-il authentique? Paris: Les ditions Sfar (diffusion Cerf),
2000.
Sinai, Nicolai. Fortschreibung und Auslegung. Studien zur frhen Koraninterpretation.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009.
Sklare, David. Responses to Islamic Polemics by Jewish Mutakallimn in the Tenth
Century. In The Majlis: Interreligious Encounters in Medieval Islam. Hava LazarusYafeh, Mark R. Cohen, Sasson Somekh, Sidney H. Griffith, eds. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999, 137161.
Smith, David E. The Structure of al-Baqarah. The Muslim World 91 (2001), 121136.
Smith, Henry. Moslem and Christian Polemic. Journal of Biblical Literature 45
(1926), 238250.
Sourdel, Dominique. Un pamphlet musulman anonyme dpoque abbside contre
les Chrtiens. Revue des tudes islamiques 34 (1966), 135.
Steinschneider, Moritz. Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache,
zwischen Muslimen, Christen und Juden. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1877.
Stieglecker, Hermann. Die muhammedanische Pentateuchkritik zu Beginn des 2.
Jahrtausends. Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 88 (1935), 7287, 282302,
472486.
Stroumsa, S. Jewish Polemics against Islam and Christianity in the Light of JudaeoArabic texts. In Judaeo-Arabic Studies: Proceedings of the Founding Conference
for Judaeo-Arabic Studies. N. Golb, ed. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic, 1997,
241250.
al-Tabar, Ab Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarr. Tafsr al-T abar, Jmi al-bayn an tawl
y al-Qurn. Mahmd Muhammad Shkir and Ahmad Muhammad Shkir, eds.
Second edition. Cairo, 195569, 16 volumes (incomplete).
al-T abar, Al ibn Rabban. The Book of Religion and Empire. A. Mingana, trans. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1922.
Thomas, David. The Bible in Early Muslim Anti-Christian Polemic. Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 7 (1996), 2938.
. al-T abar, Al b. Rabban. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. P.J. Bearman et al., eds. Leiden: Brill, 2000, Vol. X, 1718.
Tisdall, W. St. Clair. Shiah Additions to the Koran. The Moslem World 3 (1913),
227241.
Tottoli, Roberto. Origin and Use of the Term Isrliyyt in Muslim Literature. Arabica 46 (1999), 193210.
. Biblical Prophets in the Qurn and Muslim Literature. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2002.
Tov, Emanuel. The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the Alterations Inserted into the
Greek Pentateuch and Their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX. Journal for
the Study of Judaism15 (1984), 6589.
244
bibliography
Ullman, Manfred, ed. Wrterbuch der klassischen arabischen Sprache Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1983.
Vajda, Georges. Juifs et Musulmans selon le H adt . Journal asiatique ccxxix (1937),
57127.
. Ahl al-Kitb. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. H.A.R. Gibb et al., eds.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960, Vol. I, 264266.
Vermes, G. Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis. In Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome. P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans, eds.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970, 199231.
Versteegh, C.H.M. Die Mission des Kyrillos im Lichte der arabo-byzantinischen
Beziehungen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 129 (1979),
233262.
. Grammar and Exegesis: The Origins of Kufan Grammar and the Tafsr Muqtil.
Der Islam 2 (1990), 206242.
. Arabic Grammar and Qurnic Exegesis in Early Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993.
Voorhuis, John W. John of Damascus on the Moslem Heresy. The Muslim World
24 (1934), 391398.
. The Discussion of a Christian and a Saracen. The Muslim World 25 (1935),
266273.
Whid, Ab al-H asan al-Nsbr. Asbb al-nuzl. Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilimiyya,
2006.
Wansbrough, John. Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
. The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Wasserstrom, Steven M. Between Muslim and Jew: The Problem of Symbiosis under
Early Islam. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Watt, William Montgomery. The Condemnation of the Jews of Ban Qurayzah. The
Muslim World 42 (1952), 160171.
. The Early Development of the Muslim Attitude to the Bible. Transactions of
the Glasgow University Oriental Society 16 (195556), 5062.
. Kab ibn al-Ashraf. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. E. van Donzel
et al., eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978, Vol. IV, 315.
. Early Islam: Collected Articles. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990.
. Muslim-Christian Encounters: Perceptions and Misperceptions. London: Routledge, 1991.
Wensinck, Arent Jan. Muhammad and the Jews of Medina. Wolfgang Behn, trans. and
ed. Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany: Klaus Schwarz, 1975.
Westerlund, David. Ahmed Deedats Theology of Religion: Apologetics through
Polemics. Journal of Religion in Africa 33 (2003), 263278.
Wheeler, Brannon M. Israel and the Torah of Muhammad. In Bible and Qurn:
Essays in Scriptural Intertextuality. John C. Reeves, ed. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2003, 6185.
Widengren, Geo. Oral Tradition and Written Literature among the Hebrews in the
Light of Arabic Evidence, with Special Regard to Prose Narratives. Acta Orientalia
23 (1959), 20162.
. Holy Book and Holy Tradition in Islam. In Holy Book and Holy Tradition.
F.F. Bruce and E.G. Rupp, eds. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1968, 210236.
Wild, Stefan. The Self-Referentiality of the Qurn: Sura 3:7 as an Exegetical Challenge. In With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Barry D. Walfish, and Joseph W.
Goering, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, 422436.
Wilde, Clare. Is There Room for Corruption in the Books of God? In The Bible in
Arab Christianity. David Thomas, ed. Leiden: Brill, 2007, 225240.
bibliography
245
Williams, Wesley. Aspects of the Creed of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: A Study of
Anthropomorphism in Early Islamic Discourse. International Journal of Middle
East Studies 34 (2002), 441463.
Zahniser, A.H. Mathias. Major Transitions and Thematic Borders in Two Long Sras:
al-Baqara and al-Nis. In Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qurn.
Issa J. Boullata, ed. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2000, 2655.
Zebiri, Kate. Muslims and Christians Face to Face. Oxford: Oneworld, 1997.
. Polemic and Polemical Language. Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Jane Dammen
Index of Qurnic References

al-Baqara (2):1 69, 96 (nt. 117), 172,
174
2:1162 171178, 181, 205, 208
2:4 (exegesis by Muqtil) 39 (nt. 10),
71 (nt. 16), 174;
(exegesis by T abar) 208 (nt. 243)
2:14 174, 197
2:16 (exegesis by Muqtil) 101102,
173, 197
2:27 (exegesis by Muqtil) 176;
(exegesis by T abar) 186187, 196
2:33 5455
2:40 172 (nt. 40), 173;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 176;
(nt. 111), 186187
2:41 47, 53, 63, 176;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 8889, 102;
(exegesis by T abar) 155, 159, 160,
188
2:4142 27
2:42 2728, 5253, 63, 182 (nts. 90, 91,
92, 96 & 97), 183 (nt. 104), 194;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 8889, 93,
9697, 112;
(exegesis by T abar) 145146,
151152, 158;
(in the Sra) 217, 218, 219
2:44 43, 61, 121;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 100 (nt. 138)
2:53 43
2:59 2729, 56, 63;
111;
(exegesis by T abar) 136137, 139;
(in the Sra) 219220
2:72 54
2:75 2729, 28 (nt. 101), 46, 5758, 63,
65, 182183, 194, 196, 198, 200;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 7477,
105106;
138139, 158, 160, 163, 164;
(in the Sra) 216, 219
2:7579
2:76 89 (nt. 92);
(exegesis by T abar) 147, 147 (nt. 122)
2:77 55, 63, 75;

(exegesis by T abar) 146 (nt. 115),
147, 192 (nt. 133), 193, 194
2:79 2729, 63, 65, 183, 194, 195,
199200, 209, 223, 227;
113, 114115, 116;
157159, 161163, 163;
(in the Sra) 219
2:83 41 (nt. 25);
2:86 102 (nt. 144)
2:87 43
2:89 4243, 47, 63, 174 (nt. 55), 198
(nt. 191), 217;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 178 (nt. 81);
(exegesis by T abar) 199
2:89101 177
2:90 173, 198199;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 112 (nt. 144);
(exegesis by T abar) 199 (nt. 194), 203
2:91 63, 203 (nt. 219)
2:97 47, 63, 189;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 198199
2:101 44, 47, 63, 202;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 44 (nt. 39), 103,
110 (nt. 171);
(exegesis by T abar) 156, 159, 203
(nt. 219)
2:102 (exegesis by T abar) 159
2:104 99 (nt. 131);
(exegesis by Muqtil) 79 (nt. 52), 107;
(exegesis by T abar) 124 (nt. 36)
2:106 61, 63
2:111 173;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 111
2:113 43, 173
2:140 29, 54, 63, 164, 194;
2:146 27 (nt. 91), 28, 29, 53, 63, 65,
192, 196, 202;
2:159 28, 29, 54, 63, 65, 193 (nt. 149),
196, 198, 202, 218, 219 (nt. 43);
248
index of qurnic references

2:174 28, 29, 54, 63, 65, 146, 200;
160 (nt. 213)
2:175 102 (nt. 144)
2:177 44
2:211 28, 56, 63;
(nt. 103), 193
2:228 54
2:238 61
2:284 54, 55
2:285 44 (nt. 41), 80 (nt. 53)
2:287 61
l Imrn (3):3 39, 40, 47, 63
3:23 44 (nt. 40), 190 (nt. 130), 218
3:48 40, 63
3:50 40, 47, 64
3:65 40, 63
3:70 53, 93
3:71 2729, 52, 53, 59, 63, 182 (nts. 91,
96, 98, 99 & 100), 192 (nts. 135, 136
& 140);
112;
3:72 59, 93, 151;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 93, 98, 194
3:73 112, 198
3:75 59;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 104, 205
3:77 63, 163 (nt. 217)
3:7778 28
3:78 2729, 59, 60, 63, 65, 182 (nts. 91
& 92), 194, 200, 223, 227;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 9799, 101, 105,
113114, 116;
155 (nt. 179), 161, 162, 163, 164;
(in the Sra) 219
3:7879 27
3:81 47, 63, 186, 186 (nt. 114), 214;
3:93 49, 49 (nt. 71), 111 (nt. 172), 115
(nt. 178), 217 (nt. 29);
3:94 (exegesis by Muqtil) 103104;
3:153 60
3:167 54
3:177 102
3:178 187
3:184 40, 45
3:187 28, 54, 55, 63, 186, 218;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 90, 9394, 103;
(exegesis by T abar) 143 (nt. 117),
155, 156, 159
3:188 94, 194
3:199 63;
Nis (4):37 28, 54, 63, 218;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 9495, 98
(nt. 127), 200;
4:42 54
4:44 60, 78, 102 (nt. 144), 124, 195
4:4446 28, 98 (nt. 129), 216
4:46 2729, 46, 58, 59, 60, 63, 191192,
194, 196197, 201, 202, 203, 204;
106107, 113;
139140, 141, 150151, 153, 154,
160
4:47 47, 63, 78;
4:50 78;
4:119 101 (nt. 141)
4:135 60
4:136 44 (nt. 41)
4:163 39, 40, 41 (nt. 29), 63
al-Mida (5):11 80, 162, 202, 203
(nt. 214), 206, 207, 216
5:12 80, 81, 176 (nt. 70), 186, 187, 192
5:13 2729, 46, 58, 60, 63, 186, 187,
197198, 202, 204, 206, 207, 223;
99100, 107108;
(exegesis by T abar) 126128, 141,
152, 161162, 163
5:1315 27
5:14 28, 29, 64, 80, 95;
(nt. 168)
5:15 27, 28, 29, 55, 60, 64, 65, 80;
(exegesis by Muqtil) 86, 95, 110112;
5:18 104 (nt. 160)
5:41 2729, 40, 46, 58, 64, 182 (nt. 96),

183 (nt. 103), 190, 192, 194, 195, 196,
198, 200, 202, 206, 207, 227, 231;
142145, 149, 160, 161;
(in the Sra) 216217
5:4148 27
5:43 39, 41, 48, 49, 74
5:4368 40
5:44 27, 44, 48, 49, 64, 111 (nt. 172),
190 (nt. 128);
5:45 41
5:46 40, 47, 48, 64
5:47 40 (nt. 16), 49, 64
5:48 27, 47, 48, 64, 189
5:52 55
5:61 54
5:63 27
5:66 49, 64
5:68 49, 64
5:77 62 (nt. 110)
5:106 54
5:110 40, 64
al-Anm (6):7 45 (nt. 45)
6:9 5253
6:21 104
6:34 56
6:82 52, 97, 97 (nt. 122)
6:91 27, 29, 43, 45, 55, 64, 65, 182
(nts. 91, 96, 99 & 102);
149 (nt. 141)
6:92 47, 64
6:93 104
6:115 56
6:138 52
6:144 104
6:154 43, 48
6:156 44
al-Arf (7):37 104
7:51 100 (nt. 138)
7:53 28
7:145 45, 49
7:150 45
7:154 45
7:157 49, 50, 51, 64, 81 (nt. 58),
183184, 184 (nt. 109), 185 (nt. 113),
186, 202, 230
7:161 88
249
7:161162 28, 137

7:162 27, 28, 29, 56, 64;
(exegesis by T abar) 136137, 139,
202 (nt. 210)
7:165 28, 100 (nt. 138)
7:169 49 (nt. 75)
al-Anfl (8):16 58
8:53 101 (nt. 141)
al-Tawba (9):5 82
9:9 102
9:111 39, 40, 187
Ynus (10):15 56
10:37 47, 48
10:65 5657
10:94 4344, 49
Hd (11):17 43, 49
11:110 43
Ysuf (12):19 55
12:24 70
12:111 47
al-Rad (13):11 101 (nt. 141)
13:39 98 (nt. 127)
al-Nahl (16):43 49 (nt. 72)
16:44 45, 46
16:95 102
16:101 57
Ban Isrl (17):2 43, 48
17:12 98 (nt. 127)
17:2337 41 (nt. 25)
17:55 41
17:58 169
17:77 85 (nt. 75)
al-Kahf (18):9 104 (nt. 162), 172, 195,
215 (nt. 20)
18:27 56
T-H (20):115 61
20:133 45 (nt. 44)
al-Anbiy (21):7 49 (nt. 72)
21:105 4142
21:110 55
al-H ajj (22):11 58
250
al-Nr (24):2 227

24:29 54
24:51 80 (nt. 53)
24:56 202 (nt. 209)
al-Furqn (25):35 43
al-Shuar (26):192 46
26:196 4546
al-Ankabt (29):4649 91 (nt. 101)
29:49 9192
al-Sajda (32):23 43, 48
al-Ahzb (33):3638 60 (nt. 8)
33:45 183 (nt. 108)
33:48 85 (nt. 75)
33:5052 60 (nt. 8)
33:62 57, 85 (nt. 75)
Sab (34):44 44 (nt. 42)
Ftir (35):10 46
35:25 4546
35:31 47
35:43 57, 85 (nt. 75)
al-Sfft (37):102107 72 (nt. 19)
37:117 43, 49
al-Zumar (39):11 61
al-Mumin (40):85 85 (nt. 75)
Fussi lat (41):45 43

al-Ahqf (46):11 43
46:12 47, 49
46:30 47
al-Fath
48:15
48:23
48:29
(48):8 183 (nt. 108)

46, 56
57, 85 (nt. 75)
27 (nt. 131)
Qf (50):15 53
50:29 57
al-T r (52):13 45
al-Najm (53):24 70
53:3637 45
al-Qamar (54):43 45 (nt. 50)
54:52 45 (nt. 50)
al-H add (57):27 40
57:29 198
al-Saff (61):6 39, 40, 47, 184, 214
(nt. 18)
al-Juma (62):5 39, 49 (nt. 73)
al-Munfiqn (63):5 60
al-Burj (85):2122 45 (nt. 49)
al-Al (87):18 45
Index of Proper Names, Authors and Terms

Abd Allh ibn Salm 71 (nt. 16),
82, 82 (nt. 61), 85, 86 (nt. 76), 91
(nt. 101), 110 (nt. 170), 174175,
175 (nt. 66), 205207, 207 (nt. 239),
208, 215, 215 (nt. 23), 217, 217
(nt. 30)
Abd Allh ibn Thbit (d. 308/920)
31
Abd al-Razzq al-Sann (d. 211/827)
10 (nt. 29), 30 (nt. 119), 36, 68, 82
(nt. 60), 111 (nt. 172), 118, 190
(nt. 128), 203, 203 (nt. 215), 205
(nt. 230), 216
Abduh, Muhammad (18491905) 20
Abraham ibn Dwd (c. 12461316)
17
Ab Lubba 83, 83 (nts. 66 & 68), 84,
129, 132
Ab Ysir ibn Akhtab 85, 90, 97, 130,
174
Accad, Martin 2 (nt. 2), 4 (nt. 10), 24
(nt. 82), 29
Adams, Charles J. 13 (nt. 40)
Adang, Camilla vii, 2021, 23 (nt. 80),
27 (nt. 91), 28, 49 (nt. 72), 149
(nt. 141), 153, 158, 160, 163
Ahmad Khn, Sayyid (18171898) 24
Ahrens, Karl 40 (nt. 12)
akhf (to conceal) 53, 55, 64, 65, 80,
88, 95, 110, 112, 147
amr (matter) of Muhammad 44
(nt. 39), 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 92
(nt. 101), 93, 94, 95, 98, 100 (nt. 138),
103, 104, 132, 145, 175, 182185, 193
(nt. 149), 214, 217
Anawati, Georges 21 (nt. 68)
anthropomorphic language 33, 70,
70 (nts. 8 & 9), 230
asarra (to conceal) 51, 53, 55,
63, 75, 88, 95, 112, 147, 193
(nt. 149)
asbb al-nuzl (occasions of
revelation) 11 (nt. 31), 68, 114,
118, 146147, 162 (nt. 217), 170,
180 (nt. 85), 190 (nt. 128), 207,
216 (nt. 23), 218, 218 (nt. 38), 219
(nt. 43)
Ayoub, Mahmoud 7, 7 (nt. 17), 28
baddala (to change, substitute) 27,

28, 36, 5657, 61, 6364, 65, 7374,
111, 114, 116, 120, 122, 123, 124, 127,
136, 137, 138, 139, 147, 152, 156, 162
(nt. 217), 193
Ban Isrl 74, 75, 76, 81, 85, 99, 111,
121, 130, 154, 188
al-Bqilln (d. 403/1013) 20
Bell, Richard 79 (nt. 50)
Berg, Herbert 11 (nt. 31), 42 (nt. 33),
44 (nt. 40), 166 (nt. 4)
al-Biq, Burhn al-Dn (d. 884/
1480) 23
al-Brn (d. 442/1048) 17, 18, 20
Buhl, Frants 1113, 12 (nt. 32), 13,
1819, 27, 51
al-Bukhr (d. 256/870) 110 (nts. 170),
111 (nt. 172), 114, 114 (nts. 176 &
177), 115 (nt. 178), 161, 180, 184
(nt. 108), 217 (nt. 29)
Burton, John 78, 10 (nt. 30), 28, 72
(nt. 20), 122 (nt. 23), 127 (nts. 50 &
51), 132 (nt. 66), 134 (nt. 78), 139
(nt. 103), 163164, 231
Calder, Norman 8 (nt. 22), 9, 10, 37,
117 (nt. 2), 118, 166 (nt. 4), 180,
208209, 211212
Carra de Vaux, B. 41 (nt. 28), 49
(nt. 76)
Caspar, Robert 20, 28, 29, 51, 100
(nt. 138)
Charfi, Abdelmajid 35, 37 (nt. 3), 38
(nt. 5), 119
Dclais, Jean-Louis 28
Denny, Frederick 79 (nt. 52)
Di Matteo, Ignazio 7 (nt. 18), 18, 18
(nt. 37), 27, 160
Ess, Josef van 31 (nt. 122)
al-Farr (d. 207/827) 10 (nt. 29), 30
(nt. 119), 36, 68, 89 (nt. 92), 99
(nt. 131), 118, 145 (nt. 112)
Forster, Regula 33 (nt. 132), 68 (nt. 2),
169 (nt. 30)
Fritsch, Erdmann 19, 19 (nt. 50)
252
index of proper names, authors and terms
Gaudeul, Jean-Marie 20, 28, 29, 51,

100 (nt. 138)
ghayyara (to alter) 73, 101 (nt. 141),
123 (nt. 27), 124, 136, 137, 138, 139,
147, 162 (nt. 217)
al-Ghazl (d. 505/1111) 15, 17
Gilliot, Claude 30 (nts. 119 & 120), 69,
70, 70 (nt. 8)
Goddard, Hugh 2 (nt. 3)
Goldfeld, Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 33, 34,
34 (nt. 136), 184 (nt. 109)
Goldziher, Ignaz 2, 15, 16, 17, 24
(nt. 81), 34, 35, 74 (nt. 28), 114
(nt. 176), 115 (nt. 178), 119 (nt. 15),
158, 158 (nt. 202), 167169, 168
(nt. 20), 169 (nt. 27)
Gmez, Emilio Garca 25 (nt. 88)
Griffith, Sidney 41 (nt. 28), 214
(nt. 18)
Guillaume, Alfred 79 (nt. 50), 109
(nt. 168), 214 (nt. 18), 215 (nt. 22)
Haddad, M.Y.S. 2 (nts. 2 & 3), 25
h adth 17, 17 (nt. 33), 68, 69, 114
(nt. 176), 117, 167, 180, 199 (nt. 193),
201 (nt. 208), 211, 229
H jj Khalfa (d. 1067/1657) 16
h arrafa (to tamper with, change) 27,
28, 29, 36, 40, 46, 50, 5759, 61,
6364, 65, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 81, 84,
97, 100, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,
114, 116, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 127,
134, 138, 139, 140, 147, 148, 149, 150,
151, 152, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160163,
182, 216, 225
h asad (envy) 81, 99, 102, 123, 130,
132, 173, 174, 198, 201, 214 (nt. 14)
Hirschfeld, Hartwig 17, 17 (nt. 33), 26
(nt. 91), 27, 41 (nt. 25), 74 (nt. 28),
158, 171 (nt. 40), 175 (nt. 66), 191
(nt. 25), 201 (nt. 208), 214 (nt. 224),
230
Horovitz, Josef 27, 41 (nt. 221), 42
(nt. 30), 175 (nt. 66)
Hudhayl ibn H abb (d. after 190/805)
31
Ibn H azm (d. 456/1064) 12, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 19 (nt. 50), 20, 21, 23,
23 (nt. 80), 24, 25 (nt. 88), 26 (nt. 91),
163, 220221
Ibn Khaldn (d. 808/1406) 16, 20, 32,
32 (nts. 73 & 74)
Ibn al-Naghrla 25 (nt. 88)
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyy (d. 751/

1350) 16, 24, 24 (nt. 81)
Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889) 20, 22, 23
Ibn Sad (d. 230/845) 115 (nt. 178),
117, 183 (nt. 108), 204 (nt. 221), 213
(nt. 11)
Ibn Sn (d. 428/1037) 20
Ibn Sriy, Abd Allh 8587,
109111, 109 (nt. 168), 129, 130, 132,
133, 142, 143, 146, 192, 193, 195, 198,
206, 207, 216
Ibn Sriy, Sallm 83, 90, 91, 92
Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) 15, 19, 24,
24 (nts. 81 & 82), 37 (nt. 4)
ikhf (concealment) 28, 51
Injl (Gospel) 3940, 39 (nt. 10), 40
(nts. 12 & 16), 41 (nt. 29), 42 (nt. 33),
47, 64, 73, 81 (nt. 58), 90, 91, 99,
108, 112, 146, 152, 153, 183, 184, 192,
215
invent a falsehood against God 78,
100, 103104, 112 (nt. 173), 125, 157,
159
Islh, Amn Ahsan (19041997) 78
(nt. 46), 171 (nt. 40)
Islamic self-identity vii, 3, 5, 171
(nt. 40)
Izutsu, Toshihiko 5152, 61, 104
(nt. 157)
jah ada (to deny) 91, 92, 92 (nt. 101),
112, 122, 139, 151, 156, 193 (nt. 149),
195, 195 (nt. 164), 196, 208 (nt. 243)
al-Jhiz, Amr ibn Bahr (d.
255/869) 17, 19, 167
Jeffery, Arthur 27, 27 (nt. 98), 42
(nt. 31), 59, 79 (nt. 52), 186 (nt. 114)
Jehuda Halw (10751141) 17
al-Juwayn (d. 478/1085) 17, 20
Kab ibn Asad 80, 83, 84, 90
Kab ibn al-Ashraf 83, 83 (nt. 69),
84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 163
(nt. 217), 174175, 175 (nt. 65), 194,
203, 204 (nt. 220), 205, 207 (nts. 240
& 241), 208
kalm (philosophical theology) 21
kalm (speech, word) 46, 50, 57, 58,
7576, 105106, 121, 122, 125, 127,
138
kalim (words) 46, 46 (nt. 55), 50, 58,
81, 105, 107, 124, 134
kalima (word) 48, 59, 78
Karates 17
katama (to conceal) 28, 5355,

6364, 65, 85, 87, 88, 90, 92, 92
(nt. 101), 95, 102, 110, 112, 131, 147,
148, 160, 163, 182, 183, 193 (nt. 149),
218
Kayrnaw, Mawlana Rahmat Allh
(al-Hind, 181891) 16, 18, 2425,
25 (nt. 88)
kitb (book, writing) 11 (nt. 31),
4244, 42 (nts. 3133), 43 (nt. 35),
44 (nt. 40), 46, 47, 49 (nt. 75), 54,
91 (nt. 101), 92, 95, 96 (nt. 119),
101, 114, 121 (nt. 18), 144, 153, 154,
157158, 161, 185 (nt. 112), 189, 196,
214, 217
kitmn (concealment) 28, 28
(nt. 101), 29, 51, 53, 86 (nt. 76), 94,
113, 139 (nt. 103), 148, 149, 219, 219
(nt. 43)
Khoury, Adel-Thodore 28
Kister, M.J. 83 (nt. 66), 115 (nt. 178),
175 (nt. 65)
Ko, Mehmet Akif 30 (nt. 119), 31
(nt. 122), 32, 32 (nt. 124), 33 (nt. 135)
Knstlinger, Dawid 45 (nts. 43 & 44),
79 (nt. 52), 124 (nt. 36)
labasa (to confuse) 5253, 63, 88, 96,
97, 113, 151
labs (confusion) 28, 29, 51, 53
Lane, Edward 57, 60 (nt. 108)
layy (twisting) 28, 29, 51, 80, 98, 99
(nt. 131), 150
law (to twist) 27, 29, 51, 5960, 63,
96, 98, 113, 149, 161
Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava 3, 12, 12 (nt. 35),
21, 21 (nt. 67), 22 (nts. 70 & 73), 23,
28, 39 (nt. 11), 41 (nt. 28), 42 (nt. 30),
49 (nt. 76), 51, 115 (nt. 178), 154
(nt. 175), 158, 163 (nt. 219)
Leemhuis, Fred 30 (nt. 118), 33
(nt. 135)
Lewis, Phil 1 (nt. 1)
Loth, Otto 35 (nt. 146), 119 (nt. 14)
Madigan, Daniel 42 (nts. 31), 47
(nt. 59), 96 (nt. 119), 183 (nt. 105),
185 (nt. 112)
mah (to erase) 94, 98, 98 (nt. 127),
101, 114, 154
Maimonides (11351204) 17
maktb (written) in the Torah/
Gospel 81 (nt. 58), 91, 91 (nt. 101),
96, 108, 147, 183, 190 (nt. 130), 199
253
Mlik ibn al-D ayf 80, 84, 93, 96, 96

(nts. 117 & 118), 97, cf. 149 (nt. 141)
al-Maqdis (d. 355/966) 20, 23, 23
(nt. 80), 230
al-Maqrz (d. 845/1442) 16
al-Masd (d. 345/965) 17, 20
McAuliffe, Jane Dammen vii, 9, 22
(nts. 70 & 73), 26, 29, 37 (nt. 4), 43
(nt. 37), 47 (nt. 61), 156 (nt. 188),
184 (nt. 110), 185 (nt. 113), 193
(nt. 149), 204
Mir, Mustansir 28, 51, 171 (nt. 40)
Muir, William 50 (nt. 76)
Muqtil ibn Sulaymn (d. 150/767) 4,
5, 10, 13, 3034, 36, 37 (nt. 4), 38, 39
(nt. 10), 41 (nt. 29), 44 (nt. 39), 62,
66, 67, 119, 138, 139, 142, 145, 149,
152, 157, 159, 161, 162 (nt. 217), 165,
166, 168, 169, 212, 213, 215 (nt. 20),
216, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225,
226, 227, 228, 229;
(style of exegesis) 6873;
(exegesis of tampering verses)
73116;
(narrative framework) 170209
musaddiq (confirming) 4748, 47
(nt. 56), 62, 65, 107, 176, 177, 188,
189, 208 (nt. 243)
nat (description) of Muhammad 78,
86, 88, 93, 94, 98, 100 (nt. 138), 101,
122, 156, 162 (nt. 217), 182, 182
(nt. 92), 195, 198
Newby, Gordon Darnell 13 (nt. 40)
Nadr, Ban (Jewish tribe in Madna)
82, 83 (nt. 69), 87, 128, 135, 162,
202, 206, 207
nasiya (to forget) 6061, 63, 80, 81,
96, 99100, 100 (nt. 138), 113, 149
nisyn (forgetting) 28, 29, 51
Nldeke, Theodor 35
Nwyia, Paul 70 (nt. 9), 76 (nt. 39)
Obermann, Julian 59, 67 (nt. 1), 79
(nt. 50), 80 (nt. 53), 191 (nt. 130), 197
(nt. 180)
OShaughnessy, Thomas 46 (nt. 55)
Pederson, Johannes 167
Perlmann, Moshe 3
Pfander, Karl 25 (nt. 88)
polemic 1, 2, 2 (nts. 1 & 3), 3, 3 (nts. 9
& 10), 8 (nt. 23), 9, 9 (nt. 28), 1526,
38, 49, 53, 60, 163, 172 (nt. 40 & 43),
254
185 (nt. 113), 190 (nt. 129), 207

(nt. 239), 220, 225, 228229, 230,
231
Powers, David S. 2 (nt. 3)
prophethood of Muhammad 12, 89
(nt. 92), 104, 109, 110, 125, 132, 133,
136, 140, 145, 159, 164, 175, 178,
182, 183 (nt. 103), 185, 187, 188,
190, 190 (nt. 130), 193, 193 (nt. 149),
195, 198, 199, 203, 204 (nt. 220), 224,
226, 232
Pulcini, Theodore 23 (nt. 78), 26
(nt. 91), 29
al-Qaffl (d. 365/976) 20, 58
al-Qarf, Ab al-Abbs al-Sinhj
(d. 684/1285) 16, 19
al-Qsim ibn Ibrhm (d. 246/860) 18,
18 (nt. 37), 22
qawl (saying) 45 (nt. 43), 56, 57, 69,
77
Qurayza, Ban (Jewish tribe in
Madna) 82, 83, 83 (nts. 66 & 68),
87, 129, 130, 135, 214 (nt. 14)
quss s (popular preachers) 167169
Radscheit, Matthias 8 (nt. 23), 50
(nt. 76), 56 (nt. 96), 191 (nt. 131)
Rahbar, Daud 9, 35 (nt. 144)
rin (Q 4:46) 78, 79, 79 (nt. 52), 99
(nt. 131), 107, 124, 124 (nt. 36), 196,
197 (nt. 178)
al-Rz, Fakhr al-Dn (d. 606/1209) 7
(nt. 18), 89, 17, 18, 20, 5859
Rid, Rashd (18651935) 20
Rifa ibn Zayd ibn al-Sib 80, 98
(nt. 129), 216
Rippin, Andrew vii, 5 (nt. 12), 30
(nts. 118 & 119), 3536, 72 (nt. 22),
79 (nt. 52), 114, 158, 166 (nt. 4), 170,
170 (nt. 37), 171, 171 (nt. 40), 177
(nt. 77), 179 (nts. 82 & 84), 180
(nt. 85)
Robinson, Neal 171 (nt. 40)
Rubin, Uri 74 (nt. 28), 177, (nt. 73),
178 (nt. 81), 184 (nt. 110), 190
(nt. 129), 207 (nt. 241)
Saadiy (882943) 17
Sad ibn Mudh 83, 83 (nt. 68), 91
Saeed, Abdullah 1213, 13 (nt. 39), 29,
50 (nt. 76), 73, 141 (nt. 105)
Schippers, Arie 42 (nt. 30)
Schreiner, Martin 1617, 19, 114
(nt. 176), 115 (nt. 178)
Seale, M.S. 41 (nt. 25)

Sellheim, Rudolf 175 (nt. 65), 179
(nt. 80)
sell for a small price 54, 62, 63, 64,
88, 92, 93, 94, 100, 101102, 103, 114,
115, 147, 155156, 159, 161, 197, 199,
201
semantic field of tampering 5, 2930,
36, 38, 5062, 65, 80, 81, 96, 100, 114,
116, 165, 220, 223, 224
Shh Wal Allh (17031762) 24, 24
(nt. 83)
al-Shahrastn (d. 548/1153) 16, 17
sifa (description) of Muhammad 81,
89 (nt. 92), 108, 122, 132, 145, 172
(nt. 217), 182, 193 (nt. 149), 199, 213,
214 (nt. 16)
Sinai, Nicolai viii, 32 (nt. 125), 72
(nt. 22)
Sra of Ibn Ishq (d. 150/767) 8
(nt. 22), 11 (nt. 31), 17 (nt. 33), 28
(nt. 101), 68, 72, 72 (nt. 23), 76
(nt. 41), 80 (nt. 56), 83, 83 (nt. 68),
86 (nts. 76 & 77), 98 (nt. 129), 109
(nt. 168), 115 (nt. 178), 162 (nt. 216),
166 (nt. 1), 171 (nt. 40), 175 (nt. 65),
178 (nt. 80), 178 (nt. 80), 179
(nts. 83 & 84), 180, 189 (nt. 127),
198 (nt. 191), 199 (nt. 193), 206, 206
(nt. 237), 209, 213226, 228, 231
Smith, David E. 171 (nt. 40)
Steinschneider, Moritz 15, 16, 23
(nt. 75), 27
Stroumsa, Sarah 25 (nt. 88)
suh uf (scrolls) 45, 149 (nt. 141)
al-Sud, Ab-l-Fadl al-Malik (d. 942/
1535) 18
al-T abar, Al ibn Rabban (d. 240/
855) 19, 20
al-T abar, Ab Jafar ibn Jarr (d. 310/
923) 4, 5, 10, 13, 18, 20, 3436, 37
(nt. 3), 38, 41 (nt. 29), 42 (nt. 33), 43
(nt. 35), 44 (nt. 40), 58, 62, 66, 165,
166, 169, 211, 212, 213, 216, 219, 220,
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228,
229
(style of exegesis) 117119
(exegesis of tampering verses)
120164
(narrative framework) 180209
tabdl (substitution, change) 28, 29,
36, 51, 56, 57, 58, 74, 101 (nt. 141),
136, 148, 153 (nt. 168), 214 (nt. 16),
219
tafsr (interpretation) 45, 911, 21,

26, 3036, 3738, 72 (nt. 23), 117,
119, 149, 169, 190, 209, 211212, 221,
224, 225
taghyr (alteration) 58, 101, 101
(nt. 141), 134, 136, 156
tah rf (tampering, change) 1, 2, 3,
7, 9, 1112, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,
2729, 36, 51, 57, 58, 59, 73, 78, 98,
100, 101 (nt. 141), 106, 107 (nt. 166),
115 (nt. 178), 122, 125, 134, 139
(nt. 103), 144, 147, 148, 150, 153
(nt. 168), 156, 161, 197, 219, 224, 231
tah rf al-man (tampering with
meaning) 2226, 224
tah rf al-nass (tampering with
text) 2226, 224
tasdq (attestation) 4748, 97
(nt. 122), 99, 103, 122, 151, 152, 186,
188, 189, 192, 196, 198 (nt. 191)
tawl (interpretation) 24, 57, 120,
123 (nt. 27), 124, 147, 150
tayn al-mubham (identification of the
anonymous) 7172, 72 (nts. 20 &
21), 172, 175
Torah (Tawrt) 2 (nt. 3), 12 (nt. 32),
13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27
(nt. 91), 3941, 42 (nt. 33), 43, 44, 46,
(nt. 55), 47, 48, 49, 50 (nt. 76), 59,
6364, 65, 73, 78, 81, 84, 85, 86, 88,
89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98,
99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106,
107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114,
115, 116, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126, 127,
130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140,
141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 149, 153,
154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161,
162, 163, 164, 175, 176, 177, 182, 183,
184, 185 (nt. 113), 186, 187, 188, 189,
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197,
198, 199, 200, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215,
216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 223, 224, 225,
227, 230
test of prophethood 109, 109 (nt. 169),
110, 142144, 195
al-Thalab (d. 427/1035) 3132, 41
(nt. 25), 180 (nt. 88)
Thomas, David viii, 22 (nt. 71), 28
throw behind backs 62, 63, 94, 100,
103, 115, 156, 159, 202
Tottoli, Roberto 72 (nt. 19), 119
(nt. 11)
255
al-Turjumn, Abd Allh (d. 823/

1420) 18
Vajda, Georges 108 (nt. 167), 115
(nt. 178), 190 (nt. 128), 199 (nt. 193),
201 (nt. 208), 217 (nt. 30)
Versteegh, Kees vii, 30 (nt. 120), 33,
37 (nt. 4), 68, 68 (nts. 3 & 4), 70, 70
(nts. 8, 9 & 13), 72 (nt. 19), 166, 182
(nt. 92)
Wahb ibn Yahdh 85, 90, 130
al-Whid (d. 468/1037) 102 (nt. 147),
162 (nt. 217), 190 (nt. 128)
Wansbrough, John 23, 8 (nt. 22),
28, 28 (nt. 101), 30, 42 (nt. 32), 43
(nt. 37), 46 (nt. 55), 47 (nt. 56), 51,
68 (nt. 3), 70, 71, 71 (nt. 16), 72
(nts. 21 & 23), 74 (nt. 28), 107
(nt. 166), 165167, 166 (nts. 1 & 4),
169, 170, 171, 172, 172 (nt. 42), 178
(nt. 80), 179, 179 (nt. 83), 180, 181,
191 (nt. 130), 195, 198 (nt. 191), 203
(nt. 218), 214 (nt. 17), 215 (nt. 20),
217 (nt. 35), 219, 219 (nt. 43), 220
Wasserstrom, Stephen 28, 175 (nt. 66),
191 (nt. 130), 207 (nt. 239), 213
(nt. 13)
Watt, W. Montgomery 2 (nt. 3), 4
(nt. 10), 67, 7 (nt. 16), 27, 48
(nt. 62), 59 (nt. 103), 78 (nt. 48), 79
(nt. 50 & 52), 104, 112 (nt. 173), 158
Wheeler, Brannon 49 (nt. 71)
Widengren, Geo 167
Wild, Stefan 8 (nt. 23)
Williams, Wesley 70 (nt. 9)
write the book with hands 62, 63,
66, 75, 100101, 114, 116, 117, 141,
154, 158, 161
al-Yaqb (d. 292/905) 20
Zabr (Psalms) 16, 3942, 39 (nt. 10),
41 (nt. 29), 42 (nt. 30), 149 (nt. 141)
Z hirites 17
Zahniser, A.H. Mathias 171 (nt. 40)
Zebiri, Kate 12, 1 (nt. 1), 3 (nt. 5),
25, 26 (nt. 90), 172 (nts. 40 & 43)
zubur (writings) 40 (nt. 17), 4546,
45 (nt. 50)

Narratives of Tampering in The Earliest Commentaries On The Quran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Narratives of Tampering in The Earliest Commentaries On The Quran

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Narratives of Tampering in The Earliest Commentaries On The Quran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What scriptures are mentioned in the document?

What scriptures are mentioned in the document?

Narratives of Tampering

in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qurn

David Thomas, University of Birmingham

Chapter One Islamic Accusations of Falsification in

Chapter Two The Doctrine of Corruption as a Polemical

Chapter Three Qurnic References to the Earlier

Chapter Four Muqtil Ibn Sulaymn on the Qurnic

Chapter Five T abar on the Qurnic Verses of Tampering ....

Chapter Six Method and Meaning in Interpretation of the

Chapter Seven Influence of Narrative Framework on

Chapter Eight Conclusion: Religious Claims and

Islamic Accusations of Falsification

among contemporary Muslims the doctrine of the textual corruption

islamic accusations of falsification

How did the Islamic doctrine of the corruption of pre-Qurnic

islamic accusations of falsification

nderstandings of the most important Qurnic verbs and expressions

islamic accusations of falsification

islamic accusations of falsification

nation of one of the verses to be examined below, the literal sense

freedom of interplay between the Islamic scholastic disciplines and the

islamic accusations of falsification

islamic accusations of falsification

altered and changed.39 Similar phrases appear in other important

structures external to the text of scripturein particular narrative

The doctrine of corruption as a polemical theme

The publication of Steinschneiders study provided an occasion

ZDMG 32 (1878), 341387.

the doctrine of corruption as a polemical theme

between those two groups, Schreiner found the prominent points to be

Scholarly study of the theme of tah rf took a large step forward

the doctrine of corruption as a polemical theme

a historical frameword for the vague way in which Muhammad in

c omparison to other articles to this point, is his extensive description

the doctrine of corruption as a polemical theme

unanimous on what they have understood by the charge of tampering.

apologie et dialogue islamo-chrtiens: Positions classiques mdivales et positions

the doctrine of corruption as a polemical theme

of the Torah, it is confined to its interpretation.74 Another relatively

Muslim writers echoed Ibn H azms arguments, such as al-Qarf,

the doctrine of corruption as a polemical theme

verbal corruption of the text.84 But neither of these moderate views

According to scholars of the Muslim tradition, then, discussions of

the doctrine of corruption as a polemical theme

ziher wrote, The chief passages which later polemicists maintained

indicated Q 2:79 and 3:78.99 Adel-Thodore Khoury cited Q 2:7576,

the doctrine of corruption as a polemical theme

2:159, 2:174, 3:71, 5:15, 6:91; and forgetting in Q 5:14.111 In a recent

Exegesis as Polemical Discourse, 1415.

the doctrine of corruption as a polemical theme

published edition is based on a manuscript associated with the name

Further, Mehmet Akif Ko has carefully examined some 630 references

the doctrine of corruption as a polemical theme

large part of the Muqtil material examined in chapter 4, and is central

accusations influenced some early western scholarly descriptions of