Summary
Ibn Abbas And The Meaning Of “They Distort”
Ibn Hajar first explains that the wording, “They distort: they remove,” is not firmly established as a connected statement from Ibn Abbas. He says that he did not find it reliably joined to Ibn Abbas through a proven route, even though the words before it and after it are from Ibn Abbas.
Those other words were brought by Ibn Abi Hatim through the route of Ali ibn Abi Talhah from Ibn Abbas.
This matters because Ibn Abbas is being used in the debate over whether the Torah was altered in its wording, or whether its meanings were twisted while its wording remained.
Ibn Hajar points out that another report from Ibn Abbas had already appeared elsewhere, and that report seems to go against the wording mentioned here. So, the statement, “They remove,” cannot simply be treated as a firm, settled explanation from Ibn Abbas without further care.
Ibn Hajar then says that Ibn Abi Hatim did bring this meaning through Wahb ibn Munabbih, who was known for knowledge of the earlier scriptures. He also brings explanations from Abu Ubaydah and al Raghib, both of whom explain distortion as turning words away, changing them, or carrying speech upon a meaning other than its proper meaning.
Al Bukhari’s Apparent View
The important sentence is: “No one removes the wording of a book from the books of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Rather, they distort it by explaining it upon other than its proper explanation.”
Ibn Hajar explains that this sentence appears to be from al Bukhari himself, attached after the explanation of Ibn Abbas. However, he also leaves open the possibility that it may be the continuation of Ibn Abbas’s own explanation.
According to Ibn al Mulaqqin, this wording reflects one of the two known views about the verse.
He says this was the view chosen by al Bukhari: that distortion means explaining the words wrongly, not necessarily removing the actual wording. Ibn al Mulaqqin then notes that many of the Shafiʿi companions clearly said that the Jews and Christians changed the Torah and the Gospel. They even built on that the ruling that their pages may be treated with disrespect, because they are no longer preserved in their original wording. This goes against the apparent wording of al Bukhari.
So, the issue is not presented as a simple matter. Al Bukhari’s wording seems to support distortion in meaning, while many later ulama held that distortion also occurred in wording.
The Main Views On The Torah’s Alteration
The later explainers mention four main views.
- The first view is that all of the Torah was changed. Ibn Hajar considers this too extreme if taken literally. He says it should be understood to mean that most of it was changed, because many Qur’an verses and reports show that some true remains were still present. For example, the Qur’an mentions that the People of the Book found the description of the Messenger ﷺ written with them in the Torah and Gospel (al Araf: 157). Also, in the story of the two Jews who committed adultery, the verse of stoning was found with them. The Qur’an also says, “Bring the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful” (Al Imran: 93). These proofs show that not every single wording had disappeared.
- The second view is that alteration occurred in most of it. Ibn Hajar says the proofs for this are many, and the first view should be understood in this way.
- The third view is that alteration occurred in a small part of it, while most of it remained as it was. Ibn Hajar says that Shaykh Taqi al Din ibn Taymiyyah supported this in al Radd al Sahih ala Man Baddala Din al Masih.
- The fourth view is that alteration occurred only in the meanings, not in the actual wording. This is the view connected to al Bukhari’s wording here. Ibn Taymiyyah was also asked about this question separately, and he mentioned that the ulama held two views. He gave several proofs for the view that the wording was not entirely changed, including the Qur’an verse, “None can change His words” (al Anam: 115), and the fact that copies of the Torah across different lands were said to agree with each other.
Ibn Hajar’s Response To The View That The Wording Was Preserved
Ibn Hajar does not accept the argument without qualification.
He says that the verse, “None can change His words” (al Anam: 115), can be answered by another verse: “Whoever changes it after he has heard it, its sin is only upon those who change it” (al Baqarah: 181). This shows that the matter cannot be settled by quoting only one verse.
He also responds to the argument that Torah copies across different lands were the same. He says this is a strange proof, because if alteration happened, it is also possible that the altered copies became the standard copies afterwards. In other words, agreement between later copies does not prove that the original wording was fully preserved. It may only prove that people later agreed upon the altered version.
Ibn Hajar then mentions the historical claim that when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Bayt al Maqdis, he killed and captured many of the Children of Israel and destroyed their books. Then Ezra later dictated the Torah to them. As for the Gospel, he mentions that when the Romans entered Christianity, their king gathered their leading men upon the Gospel that was in their hands. This is used to show that historical events may have affected the transmission of these scriptures.
At the same time, Ibn Hajar makes a clear point: distortion of the meanings is not denied at all.
That happened among them in abundance.
The real debate is whether the actual wording was changed as well.
Ibn Hazm’s Position
Ibn Hazm took a very strong position that the Torah and Gospel in the hands of the Jews and Christians were altered. He listed examples from their scriptures that he considered impossible to be from Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Among them were statements about Adam, the magicians of Pharaoh, and the daughters of Lut عليه السلام. He considered these things rejected and ugly, and proof that the wording had been changed.
Ibn Hazm also argued from the Qur’an. He said that those who deny alteration are not paying enough attention to the Qur’an and the Sunnah. He pointed to Qur’an verses saying that they distort words from their places (al Nisa: 46), tell lies against Allah knowingly (Al Imran: 75), and say, “It is from Allah,” when it is not from Allah (Al Imran: 78).
He also argued that the Qur’an mentions descriptions of the Companions in the Torah and Gospel (al Fath: 29), while these descriptions are not found in the books currently held by the Jews and Christians. He said that if someone claims their books were preserved through mass transmission, then they would also have to accept their claim that Muhammad ﷺ is not mentioned in them. Ibn Hazm says this is not acceptable, because one cannot believe part of their claim and reject another part when both are transmitted in the same way.
The Ruling On Reading The Torah
Ibn Hajar’s final position is balanced.
He says the dislike of reading from the books of the People of the Book appears to be for discouragement, not strict prohibition in every case.
He then makes an important distinction.
A person who is not firmly grounded in faith should not look into those books, because he may become confused or misled.
As for a person firmly rooted in knowledge and faith, then it may be permissible for him, especially when there is a need to refute opponents and show the truth of Muhammad ﷺ from what remains in their own scriptures.
Ibn Hajar supports this by saying that imams, early and later, quoted from the Torah and used it against the Jews as proof for Muhammad ﷺ. If they believed that looking into it was always forbidden, they would not have done so repeatedly.
The Meaning Of Distortion In This Context
Ibn Hajar explains what al Bukhari likely meant by “they explain it.”
He means that they distort the intended meaning through a kind of false interpretation. For example, if a Hebrew word could carry two meanings, one near and one far, and the near meaning is clearly intended, they would carry it upon the far meaning in order to change the intended sense.
So, the main point is that distortion is certain in meaning, and there is strong discussion over whether it also occurred in wording. Ibn Abbas is not firmly proven through a connected route to have said here that distortion means “removing,” but some related meanings are reported from others. Al Bukhari’s wording seems to support distortion in meaning.
Ibn Hazm and al Zarkashi support alteration in wording as well. Ibn Hajar presents the views, questions weak arguments, and ends with a careful distinction: not everyone may safely read these books, but a firmly grounded scholar may do so when needed for refutation and proof.
End of Summary.
Ibn Hajar’s Sharh Translated
Ibn Hajar said: His saying, “They distort: they remove.” I have not seen this connected as the speech of Ibn Abbas through any established route, although what comes before it is from his speech, and likewise what comes after it, namely his saying, “their study: their recitation,” as well as what follows it. Ibn Abi Hatim brought all of that through the route of Ali ibn Abi Talhah from Ibn Abbas.
What has already come in the chapter on His saying, “Every day He is bringing about a matter” (al Rahman: 29), from Ibn Abbas, conflicts with what is mentioned here, namely explaining “they distort” with his saying, “they remove.”
However, Ibn Abi Hatim did bring it through the route of Wahb ibn Munabbih. Abu Ubaydah said in the book al Majaz, concerning His saying, “They distort the words from their places,” “They turn them away and change them.” Al Raghib said, “Distortion means bending something away. Distorting speech means placing it upon one possible side of meaning, so that it can be carried upon two or more meanings.”
His saying, “No one removes the wording of a book from the books of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Rather, they distort it: they explain it upon other than its proper explanation.” In the narration of al Kashmihani, it says, “They explain it according to other than its proper explanation.”
Our Shaykh Ibn al Mulaqqin (d. 804AH) said in his explanation, “What he said is one of the two views concerning the explanation of this verse, and it is his chosen view, meaning al Bukhari (d. 256AH).
Many of our companions clearly said that the Jews and Christians changed the Torah and the Gospel, and they built upon that the permissibility of treating their pages with disrespect.
This goes against what al Bukhari said here.” End quote. This is almost explicit that his saying, “No one…” until the end, is from the speech of al Bukhari, which he attached after the explanation of Ibn Abbas. It is also possible that it is the remaining part of Ibn Abbas’s speech concerning the explanation of the verse.
Some later explainers said, “There are several views on this issue.
The first is that all of it was changed. This is what follows from the quoted view that it is permissible to treat it with disrespect. This is excessive. The unrestricted wording of anyone who said this should be understood as meaning most of it, otherwise it is mere denial of what is evident. There are many verses and reports showing that many things from it remained unchanged. Among them is the saying of Allah, Exalted is He, “Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel,” until the end of the verse (al Araf: 157). Another example is the story of the stoning of the two Jews, in which the verse of stoning was found. This is supported by the saying of Allah, Exalted is He, “Say: Bring the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful” (Al Imran: 93).
The second is that the change did occur, but in most of it. Its proofs are many, and the first view should be understood according to this.
The third is that it occurred in a small part of it, while most of it remains as it was. Shaykh Taqi al Din ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) supported this in his book al Radd al Sahih ala Man Baddala Din al Masih.
The fourth is that change and alteration only occurred in the meanings, not in the wordings. This is what is mentioned here. Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about this issue on its own, and he answered in his fatwas that the ulama have two views on it. He used many ways to support the second view. Among them is the saying of Allah, Exalted is He, “None can change His words” (al Anam: 115). This is opposed by the saying of Allah, Exalted is He, “Whoever changes it after he has heard it, its sin is only upon those who change it” (al Baqarah: 181). It is not necessary to reconcile between them in the way mentioned, by carrying the negation upon wording and the affirmation upon meaning, because it is possible to carry the negation upon the ruling, and to carry the affirmation upon what is wider than wording and meaning.
Among his proofs is also that the copies of the Torah in the east, west, south, and north do not differ, and it is impossible for change to occur and then all copies agree upon one same method. This is a strange proof, because if change is possible, then removing what was changed is also possible. The copies that exist now are the ones upon which their matter settled after the change, and the reports concerning that are abundant.
As for what relates to the Torah, Nebuchadnezzar invaded Bayt al Maqdis, destroyed the Children of Israel, tore them apart between those killed and those taken captive, and destroyed their books, until Ezra came and dictated it to them. As for what relates to the Gospel, when the Romans entered Christianity, their king gathered their leading men upon what is in the Gospel that is in their hands. Their distortion of the meanings is not denied.
Rather, it exists among them in abundance. The disagreement is only over whether the wordings were distorted or not. There has been found in the two books wording that cannot possibly be from Allah, Mighty and Majestic, at all.
Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm (d. 456AH) listed many things of this kind in his book al Fasl fi al Milal wa al Nihal. Among that is what he mentioned, that in the first section, on the first page, of the Torah of the Jews that is with their Rabbanites, Karaites, Ananites and Isawites, wherever they may be in the east and west, without any difference among them and in one same wording, so that if anyone tried to add one word to it or remove one word from it, he would be exposed among them, and which they agree upon back to the Aaronite rabbis who lived before the second destruction, and which they mention was conveyed from those rabbis to Ezra the Aaronite, it says that Allah, Exalted is He, said when Adam ate from the tree: “This Adam has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.”
It also says that the magicians did for Pharaoh the like of what was sent against them of blood and frogs, and that they were unable to do the gnats. It also says that the two daughters of Lut, after the destruction of his people, each slept with her father after giving him wine to drink, and that he had intercourse with both of them and they both became pregnant from him, along with other rejected and ugly matters.
He also mentioned in other places that alteration occurred in it until it was destroyed, then the mentioned Ezra dictated it in the way it is now. Then he quoted things from the wording of the Torah which is now in their hands, where the lie within it is very clear.
Then he said, “It has reached us that some Muslims deny that the Torah and Gospel that are in the hands of the Jews and Christians are distorted. What led them to this is their lack of concern for the texts of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. They include the fact that “they distort the words from their places” (al Nisa: 46), and “they tell lies against Allah while they know” (Al Imran: 75), and “they say, “It is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah” (Al Imran: 78), and they mix truth with falsehood and hide the truth while they know. It is said to those who deny this: Allah, Exalted is He, said regarding the description of the Companions, “That is their description in the Torah, and their description in the Gospel is like a crop that sends out its shoot,” until the end of the surah (al Fath: 29).
There is nothing of this in the hands of the Jews and Christians. It is also said to whoever claims that their transmission is mass transmitted: they have agreed that there is no mention of Muhammad ﷺ in the two books. So if you believe them regarding what is in their hands because it was transmitted by mass transmission, then believe them in what they claim, that there is no mention of Muhammad ﷺ or his Companions. Otherwise, it is not permissible to believe some of it and reject some of it while both come by one same route.” End of his speech, and it contains benefits.
Al Zarkashi (d. 794AH) said, “Some of the later scholars were deceived by this, meaning by what al Bukhari said, so they said: There is a difference of view over the distortion of the Torah. Was it in the wording and the meaning, or only in the meaning?
He inclined to the second view and saw that reading it was permissible. This is a false view. There is no disagreement that they distorted and changed it. Being occupied with reading it and writing it is not permissible by consensus. The Prophet ﷺ became angry when he saw that Umar had a sheet containing something from the Torah, and he said, “If Musa عليه السلام were alive, nothing would be open to him except following me.” If it had not been a sin, he would not have become angry over it.”
I say: If the consensus is established, then there is no further speech about it. However, he restricted it to being occupied with writing it and reading it. If he meant someone who becomes occupied with that and nothing else, then the intended point is not achieved, because it would be understood that if someone became occupied with that while also being occupied with other things, it would be permissible.
But if he meant being occupied with it in an unrestricted sense, then this is a point requiring examination. Also, there is room for examination in his describing the mentioned view as false, despite what has already come before, for it has been ascribed to Wahb ibn Munabbih (d. 114AH), and he was among the most knowledgeable people about the Torah.
It has also been ascribed to Ibn Abbas, the interpreter of the Qur’an. It would have been more fitting for him to leave outright rejection aside and be occupied with answering the proofs of the opposing view which I quoted. His use of the story of Umar as proof for impermissibility, in the matter where he claimed consensus, also requires examination. I will mention this after giving the source references of the mentioned hadith.
Ahmad (14631) and al Bazzar brought it, and the wording is his, from the hadith of Jabir, who said: Umar copied a book from the Torah into Arabic and brought it to the Prophet ﷺ. He began reading, and the face of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ started to change.
A man from the Ansar said to him, “Woe to you, Ibn al Khattab. Do you not see the face of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ?” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ then said, “Do not ask the People of the Book about anything, for they will never guide you while they have gone astray. You may either reject something true or believe something false. By Allah, if Musa عليه السلام were among you, nothing would be permissible for him except to follow me.” In its chain is Jabir al Juʿfi, and he is weak. (The chain of the hadith of Jabir ibn Abd Allah does not contain Jabir al Juʿfi. Rather, it contains Mujalid ibn Saʿid, who is also weak. The hadith whose chain contains Jabir al Juʿfi is the hadith of Abd Allah ibn Thabit, which al Hafiz will mention shortly.)
Ahmad (15156) also brought it, as did Abu Yaʿla (2135), through another route from Jabir, that Umar came with a book he had obtained from some of the books of the People of the Book, and he read it to the Prophet ﷺ, so he became angry. He then mentioned something similar, without the statement of the Ansari. In it is, “By the One in Whose Hand is my being, if Musa عليه السلام were alive, nothing would be open to him except to follow me.” In its chain is Mujalid ibn Saʿid, and he is weak.
Al Tabarani brought it with a chain containing someone unknown and someone differed over, from Abu al Darda: Umar came with collected portions from the Torah. He mentioned it in a similar way, and he named the Ansari who addressed Umar as Abd Allah ibn Zayd, the one who saw the adhan. In it is, “If Musa عليه السلام were among you, then you followed him and left me, you would have gone far astray.”
Ahmad (15864) and al Tabarani brought it from the hadith of Abd Allah ibn Thabit, who said: Umar came and said, “O Messenger of Allah, I passed by a brother of mine from Banu Qurayzah, and he wrote for me collected portions from the Torah. Shall I present them to you?” He said: The face of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ changed. The hadith continues, and in it is, “By the One in Whose Hand is the being of Muhammad, if Musa عليه السلام were to wake among you, then you followed him and left me, you would go astray.”
Abu Yaʿla brought through the route of Khalid ibn Urfutah, who said: I was with Umar when a man from Abd al Qays came to him, so he struck him with something he had. The man said, “What is wrong with me, O Commander of the Believers?” He said, “Are you the one who copied the Book of Daniel?” He said, “Command me as you wish.” He said, “Go and erase it. If it reaches me that you have read it or made anyone read it, I will inflict punishment upon you.”
Then he said, “I went and copied a book from the People of the Book, then I came, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to me, “What is this?” I said, “A book which I copied so that knowledge may be increased through it alongside our knowledge.” He became angry until his cheeks turned red.” He then mentioned a story in which there is, “O people, I have been given the comprehensive words and their seals, and speech has been made concise for me. I have brought it to you pure and clear, so do not fall into confusion.” In its chain is Abd al Rahman ibn Ishaq al Wasiti, and he is weak.
These are all the routes of this hadith. Although none of them contains what may be used independently as proof, their totality indicates that it has a basis. What appears is that the dislike of that is for discouragement, not prohibition.
The best approach in this issue is to distinguish between the one who is not firmly grounded and has not become among those firmly rooted in faith, for it is not permissible for him to look into any of that, and the firmly grounded person, for it is permissible for him, especially when there is need to refute the opponent. This is shown by the imams, early and later, quoting from the Torah and making the Jews answerable through belief in Muhammad ﷺ based on what they extract from their book. If they had not believed that looking into it was permissible, they would not have done it and repeatedly followed one another in doing so.
As for his proof for prohibition through what was reported of anger, and his claim that if it had not been a sin he would not have become angry over it, this is open to objection. He may become angry over doing something disliked, or over doing what is contrary to what is better, when it comes from someone for whom that is not fitting, such as his anger at Muʿadh for making the Fajr prayer long through his recitation. He may also become angry at someone who falls short in understanding a clear matter, such as the one who asked about a lost camel. It has already come in the Book of Knowledge: anger during admonition, and it passed in the Book of Manners: what anger is permissible.
His saying, “They explain it.” Abu Ubaydah and a group said concerning the saying of Allah, Exalted is He, “None knows its interpretation except Allah” (Al Imran: 7), “Interpretation means explanation.”
Others differentiated between the two. Abu Ubayd al Harawi said, “Interpretation is to return one of two possible meanings to what matches the apparent wording, while explanation is to uncover what is intended by a difficult wording.” The author of al Nihayah quoted that interpretation is to move the apparent meaning of a wording away from its original placement to something which needs proof, and were it not for that proof, the apparent meaning would not be left.
It was also said, “Interpretation is to present a possible meaning of a wording which is supported by an external proof.” Some of them gave as an example the saying of Allah, Exalted is He, “There is no doubt in it” (al Baqarah: 2). He said, “Whoever says, “There is no uncertainty in it,” this is explanation. Whoever says, “Because it is true in itself and does not accept doubt,” this is interpretation.”
What al Bukhari intended by his saying, “They explain it,” is that they distort the intended meaning through a kind of interpretation, such as if a word in Hebrew carries two meanings, one near and one far, and the intended meaning is the near one, but they carry it upon the far one, and things of that nature.
Fath al Bari Sharh Sahih al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al ʿAsqalani 24/565–572
