Ibn-Hazm (Khazem) and Corruption - Analysis

Ibn-Hazm (Khazem) and Corruption

The cornerstone of Muslim Apologetics to Christians is the Doctrine of Biblical Corruption.  However, most Muslims:

1. Do not know the history of this doctrine.

2. Have never thought through the theological implications of this doctrine.

3. Have never thought through the Historical implications of this doctrine.

 In this thread, I would like to discuss these issues.

History of the Doctrine:

Ibn Hazm (aka Ibn Khazem) was the first Muslim to posit the Doctrine of Biblical Corruption in the 11th century AD.  Thus for the first four centuries of Islamic history this doctrine did not exist. This is in keeping with a literal grammatical reading of the Quran which claims to be " a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture" Surah 10:37

However, Ibn Hazm noticed that the Quran does not live up to the standard which it proclaims:

"Ibn-Khazem saw the contradictions between the Qur'an and the Gospels. One obvious example being the Qur'anic text `They slew him not and they crucified him not' Surah 4:156. `Since the Qur'an must be true,' Ibn- Khazem argued, `it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians.' His argument was not based on historical facts, but purely on his own reasoning and on his wish to safeguard the truth of the Qur'an. I. DI MATTEO, (`Il "takhrif" od alterazione della Bibbia secondo i musulmani', Bessarione 38 (1922) 64-111; 223-260; `Le preteze contradizzioni della S. Scrittura secondo Ibn-Hazm', Bessarione 39 (1923) 77-127, E. FRITSCH, op. cit., p. 66.)"

"Nothing could stop him from pursuing this accusation, it seemed the easiest way to attack the opponents. `If we prove the falsehood of their books, they lose the arguments they take from them.' (IBN KHAZEM, Kitab al-fasl fi'l-milah wa'l ahwa'l nikhal, II,6; E. FRITSCH, op cit., p.55) and this led to him eventually making the cynical statement `The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which Allah has left intact as argument against them.' ( IBN KHAZEM, ibid.; E. FRITSCH, op. cit, p. 64)"

"Later writers took up the same reasoning, enlarged it and embellished it. The falsification of the Bible was thus asserted by Salikh Ibn-al-Khusain (died 1200AD), Ahmad at-Qarafi (died 1285AD), Sa'id Ibn-Khasan (died 1320AD), Muhammad Ibn-Abi-Talib (died 1327AD), Ibn-Taimija (died 1328AD) and many others. From then on it has become a fixed ingredient of Muslim apologetics."

Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/138007

Theological Implications of the Doctrine:

If God was either unable or unwilling to keep His Word from corruption, then He is not God. If He was not able to keep His Word from corruption then He is not Omnipotent and thus not God. If He was unwilling to keep His Word from Corruption then His attributes of Veracity and Immutability are compromised and He is not God:

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2

The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.Isaiah 40:8

Historical Implications of the Doctrine:

The historical implications of this doctrine are huge. The Bible is by far the most well attested book of antiquity. The manuscript evidence is much stronger than any other ancient writing. Thus to throw out the Bible as corrupted is to throw out the writings of: Homer, Virgil, Tacitus, Josephus, Julius Caesar, Ovid, Virgil, Euripides, Sophocles, Aristotle, Suetonius, etc., basically all of Ancient History.

Thus, Ibn Hazm's doctrine of Biblical Corruption makes no sense. It should be rejected by the honest Muslim. It is an impediment to the necessary confrontation of the critical question:

What is the real reason why the Quran and the Bible disagree on most major doctrines?