Talk:Tahrif

message: ----The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah's words are considered by Muslims as proof of tahrif.
'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD",
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely? [7]----
Considered by Muslims?  Come on.  I'm in a 100% Muslim country with about 50% literacy rates, and "Muslims" somehow have decided that a book they almost surely have never seen has proof of tahrif.  Don't get me wrong, most of my neighbors, family and friends believe that the Torah is corrupt - but we don't need to pretend that they have any idea why.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.115.115 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Muslims" 

message: Don't worry, I'm not trying to incite a POV war, but the section alleges an early refutation. How early? I want to hear more, I think whoever wrote the section, while with good intentions of enriching the article, has shortchanged us. This really interests me. I'm genuinly intrigued and want to hear more, please expand it and give more details.Angrynight 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completed this part by adding some information from the article of a Sunni Scholar about Shi'a viewpoint.Is the Qur’an Corrupted? Shi’ites’ View --Sa.vakilian 12:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refutation Section needs fixin'

message: There are simply too many criticisms scattered about. (71.188.101.57 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: We make a new article entitled "Criticism of Tahrif"

message: :some adherents of Shi'a Islam accuse the adherents of Sunni Islam to have a Quran that are removed from the Qur'an, namely (surat al-wilaya and surat al–nurayn), that supposedly were forged in order to justify Ali’s right to succession.
--Striver 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Get ridd of this

message: At least. I haven't read over the article in its entirety I haven't the time. But the first few sentences seem quite accusatory. I do not remember it being that way the last time I viewed the article. Would someone look into it? Angrynight 02:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in first senteces. 

message: I am sorry that I didn't get to work on the article. The article is currently POV (which only says that not all views are represented there). As an example see: http://www.mostmerciful.com/quran-does-not-state-bible-is-true.htm 
The problem is that I need to do research and find out other ideas. Thanks --Aminz 00:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article POV 

message: I'm removing the section "Accusation of forgery polemical motif in pre-Islamic times" because 1 most of it refers to post-Islamic accusations and 2 the rest of it I do not think is factual at all. I've done some research on early Christian disputes and I've never encountered either side accusing the other of corrupting the text. I'm also removing from the section "Tahrif in the first centuries of Islam" mention of early Islamic concepts of textual corruption. I've never heard of this kind of tahrif in the first centuries, nor does this section mention a single Muslim who believed it. It's natural to think that because we currently believe something, the original founders of the faith believed it which is why the section was probably written in the first place. But, if someone can give a reference they may welcomingly rv my deletions. (BTW, I mention this so no one accuses me of a mass deletion.) --Ephilei 04:50, 10 July 2006
(UTC)
Islam is 1400 years old at best. There is no such thing as 1st century tarif. The Greek Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls validate that Christ and the Apostles used these writings in the 1st century. The Catholic church still has the authoritative and complete model of the OT and NT in Greek. Since Jesus used them then tarif unintentially accused Jesus of using corrupt text. Tahrif is refuted on the bases that it contradicts Jesus and the Apostles and the Dea Sea Scrolls. Ultimately this means there is no need for the Quran. (Simonapro 22:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sections 

message: Both of these sections need to be deleted. Simply because they do not realte to the article. The article is about Tahrif Doctrine in Islam and those sections blatantly quote the bible and show the Christian/Jewish POV. Effectively turning the article into a comparative religion debate. These sections are:
Origin of tahrif
Qur'an and the claim of the corruption of the text itself'''
I've edited the sections about the sunni islam shia islam. Whoever quoted Shmuel Bar on the sunni opinions on shiites tahriif, failed to mention that the author affirmed that the shiites believe that the Quran is missing some verses on the same page! So i added a sentence showing the author's opinion on this matter. Its from footnotes footnote #10. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.220.17.250 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this even an article? 

message: "To translate a word that has two meanings in the meaning that is totally against the context. For example the Hebrew word ‘ابن’ was translated as ‘son’ whereas it also meant ‘servant’ and ‘slave’."
:If the word in question is Hebrew, why is it written in Arabic script. Wouldn't it be more illustrative in the correct language? Then the pun would be more apparent . I would change it, but I don't know the word to which it refers. Off the top of my head, I don't know a word commonly used for both a son and a slave. 68.196.254.231 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on reference to Hebrew

message: I've done some tagging, but yes, this is reeking with apologism and debate. Unreferenced sources are used to prove that tahrif is incorrect, and even illogical arguments. At least half of this article is trying to prove the entire idea is false. --Enzuru 21:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, lots of this material comes from James White, no? --Enzuru 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nope, it isn't an article 

message: Reeks with PoV, and apparently whoever wrote the refutation section did some personal research. We need a direct quote to the Koran for the verse, and modern interpretations from published Islamic scholars. Not some random person's opinion. The Fear (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does apologism belong at all in this article? This isn't Answering-Islam. --Enzuru 07:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Mainly the refutation goes over the issue that textual tahrif cannot be found in early Muslim sources, it is something that is a more modern theory. However, I think that James White's point is flawed because it relies on Sunni sources, I think textual tahrif appears in Shi'a sources around Jafar as-Sadiq's time. But once again, that isn't the point in hand. --Enzuru 03:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Cosnanhang, when you, following my edit , update  incorrect information attributed to the same source , do you call this tahrif -corruption - regardless of how good your intentions are? Or are 'minor variations'  of couple hundred years OK? Kabad (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that the refutation of tahrif in this article is longer than the actual description of tahrif itself. Yes, the Jewish and Christians views can be mentioned in this article as well as Muslim views in light of contemporary findings on scripture, but in passing. Apologetics should be kept to a minimum. --Afghana [talk] 04:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some PoV issues, and some misquotations 

message: This has lost a lot of pertinent information which I feel is important to the article in the time I've been away. Compare it to this version from a year ago. Would anyone object to the restoration of the Tahrif in the First Centuries of Islam and the Qur'an and the doctrine of tahrif sections in some form? I feel that at the very least the Quranic sources for the concept should be cited. Peter Deer (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At it's current state, it is nowhere near a neutral POV.  I came to this article to try to learn what the Tahrif IS, and left more confused than I came.  I know about Islam theological scholorly history, but that's not what this article should be about at all.  Not to mention, all the Judeo-Christian comparisons could leave someone completely lost if the reader didn't grow up in a Judeo-Christian culture.  This article is more misinformation than it is information. Psydude (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I am not sure this subject can ever be covered in a simple NPOV way, it is vitally important to all three religions that the texts they use are valid. For one to suggest corruption by the others is hot stuff and so commentators from the other two have had a lot to say in reply.  Cosnahang (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of Pertinent Topics 

message: The section Tahrif#Further_Modern_Christian_criticism currently states: "Modern Christian rejection of tahrif is based on seven broad arguments".
However, only five are listed. Are the other two missing, should the above simply be changed to five?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElijahOmega (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven? 

message: assalam o alaikum    i wanted to add some thing about the hadid being quoted the words of waraqa do not suggest that the message in the bible was corrupted or not but suggests that there exist signs in the same for the revelation of a prophet after Jesus (pbuh) which will get a divine message as did prophets before him but with an exception that he will be the last messenger and no divine word will come after wards   the corruption occurred or not is not the issue the issue is when a christian covenant is suggesting that the person will be given a divine message it means that it will be better then bible because if it(bible) was complete what was the need of the new message hence there also exists a sign for those who are given knowledge by ALLAH.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.48.56 (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  waraqa bin naufal 

message: Quote from Article: "[...]early scholars known to support the lack of change of the Tawrat and Injil[...]".
What is meant here? That these scholars spoke out against the view that the old scriptures had been altered? Please clarify! Also, a quotation or two from their own writings would be in order here, I think. - 88.78.206.14 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: The following needs a non-Primary source.
Editor2020, Talk 03:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence section 

message: I notice I can scarcely find an article on a exclusively Christian subject without one; if there is a Christian article which even coherently attempts to set forth the Christian perspective, rather than some so-called scholarly 'consensus', where 'scholar' is arbitrarily defined to eliminate both contemporary and historical Christian writers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing Views? 

message: Is it just me or is there primary research in the lead-section? I would prefer a scholary secondary source which analzsed how Muslims view this and also analyze the impact of the cited scholars. Anyone can cite Ibn Taimiyya and attribute to Muslims probably many rejected. I would like to remove the citations, if there is no opposition and rewrite the lead slightly. It might be generally accepted that Muslims agree that the Bible is not the original word of God, that Jews and Christians intentionally altered the book is rather disputed. For example Injil (New Testament basically) is said to have been lost, not altered.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources in the lead-section 

message: As Occam's razor has it, the simplest explanation tends to be more likely to be correct. Why presume a massive conspiracy of fabrication to change the content of a huge corpus of sacred literature (which there are serious and solemn prohibitions in tradition against altering)? When the burden of alteration is more likely to run the other way, that since the time(s) of Biblical inscription, the actions of characters featured in it have been reinterpreted as sinful? The Quranic and Islamic definition of Zina as "unlawful sexual intercourse outside of marriage", for example, did not exist in the historical period depicted in the Torah. The gradual accrual of prohibitions against non-marital sex within Abrahamic monotheism in general has doubtless led to an oral tradition in pre-Islamic monotheistic traditions that is stringently anti-sex. Looking back at the textual sources which inspired the specifically Islamic form of monotheism, Muslims are horrified to find it does not agree with their set of rules. How could such a thing have happened? Obviously, the Quran and Islam can't be at fault — no, the fault must lie in the Torah, which has somehow been altered since ancient times.
It seems strange that within the entire history of Islamic exegesis, this opposite point-of-view argument has never been advanced.
Nuttyskin (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why presume ''tahrif''?