Tahrif and its Legality
http://www.darultawhid.com/en/forum/index.php?topic=2339.0
Tahrif is an Arabic word which means "corruption and forgery"; and it is
changing the text through altering words from their proper meaning, changing
words in form, or substituting words or letters for others. This includes
twisting the words of the text in order to misinterpret it; encountering any
word or sentence which goes against their interests, and the beliefs and
notions which they cherish; distorting the meaning of it by deliberately
twisting tongues; tampering with the text of the Scripture, misinterpreting the
Scripture and thereby distorting the meanings of the verses of the Book;
Distortion denotes the attempt to twist a text in such a manner as to make it
signify something different from its real meaning, and/or denote tampering with
the text of the Scriptures.
There are different types of Tahrif:
To deliberately interpret something in a manner that is totally opposite to the
intention of the author. To distort the pronunciation of a word to such an
extent that the word changes completely.
To add to or delete a sentence or discourse in a manner that completely
distorts the original meaning.
To translate a word that has two meanings in the meaning that is totally
against the context.
To raise questions about something that is absolutely clear in order to create
uncertainty about it, or to change it completely.
To injure by tearing or cutting off a limb or essential part; maim.
To damage a book or text so as to render it unintelligible.
To spoil or damage severely.
On the issue of tahrif (mutilating/corruption/forgery) there are two points
that should be looked at carefully:
The first point is the illah which causes a contract to be kufr after it has
been signed.
Contracts per se are not kufr. The illah which cause a contact to turn into
kufr is the alfazl kufr that is recorded in the contract. If anyone deletes and
mutilates the word of kufr (i.e. giving authority to a taghout court) and then
signs it there would be no reason left to make takfir of him. According to the
shariah every individual is responsible for their acts and statements. If a
person signs a contract after he has mutilated it, the qadi of the court of
shariah would not accuse him for committing kufr. It is because he
mutilated/crossed/deleted the illah which makes signing the contract kufr
therefore after mutilating the contract he merely signed a contact which does
not contain any kufr in it.
The act of the individual who had lifted the al fazl kufr within the contract
is the tahrif of bateel as RasulAllah (saw) stated: “Whomsoever from amongst
you sees munkar (evil), then let him change it with his hand, so if he is not
able, then with his tongue, so if he is not able, then in his heart...”
(Muslim) To mutilate the evil is to make tahrif of it and this is not kufr. The
hukm of that which tahrif is made to is invalid; the kufr that was mutilated on
the document is considered to be invalid (no longer kufr). Here making tahrif
of the word court itself will most likely not affect the court itself, meaning
the court will have no care about the mutilated word yet by making tahrif of
the word one will not be performing al fazl kufr. When an individual crosses
over the word or writes ‘I do not accept’ he will be prevented from performing
alfazl kufr.
This is related only to the contracts which are not kufr per se. This means, if
signing the contract itself is an act of kufr then even mutilating this
document would not prevent one from performing kufr. As an example appealing to
the court of taghout is kufr. If anyone mutilates/deletes/crosses the word of
kufr in the contract and then signs the document in order to appeal to the
court of taghout is an act of kufr. In this incident there are two acts of kufr
and even if one mutilates the kufr wording on the application he still performs
the kufr of appealing to the court of taghout and becomes murtad. A similar
case would be where the signing of the document does not lead to kufr such as,
a contract between two parties such as an agreement while renting a
house/trading etc. Trading/renting houses is mubah (permissible), however the
word of kufr which is in the contract cannot be signed without
deleting/mutilating. If it was signed without mutilation
then this would be taken in consideration as acceptance of the kufr and
showing consent to the kufr. If the Muslim individual deletes/mutilates the
word of kufr then he destroys the reason which makes signing the contract kufr.
The document of agreement cannot be signed without tahrif (mutilating). The
individual who signs it will be kafir if it is kufr or if it contains kufr. The
individual who has shown, acted, stated or performed any act of acceptance of
the hakimiyyah of the taghout such as signing, nodding his head, etc will have
become kafir. Tahrif is changing; the mutilation of something from its original
form. The individual who mutilates the original agreement will have lifted the
alfazl kufr in the agreement by deleting it and will have signed the document
without any alfazl kufr. The individual can only be judged by his actions.
According to Islam he will only be judged by the agreement he had signed, and
for the individual who signs an agreement which does not contain kufr or any
condition opposing Islam there is no valid reason left to make takfir of him.
The second point regarding the matter is related with the opponent.
Some claim that it is still kufr because the opponent is not informed of the
mutilation. Informing the opponent is not a must in every incident. Every state
sees the inhabitants of the state as individuals who accept the hakimiyyah of
the state. As long as a Muslim does not show any act or utter any statement
that he accepts the hakimiyyah of the taghout than this view of the taghout
does not have any base regarding the Muslims’ responsibilities towards the
state. According to their inference it is kufr to live on the land of the
taghout therefore there is no way to escape from the kufr. Wherever you go
there is a taghout and it has its own laws etc. The point here is that what the
opponent understands is not always what is right. There are many examples of
this throughout the Islamic history where fooling/tricking the kuffar is
clearly seen.
One of the evidences of this principle is the situation of Ibrahim (as): “Then
did he cast a glance at the Stars. And he said, ‘I am indeed sick (at
heart)!’.” (as-Saffat 37/88-89)
Qurtubi states: I say: In Sahih (Bukhari) it is narrated from RasulAllah (saw)
that he said: “Prophet Ibrahim (as) had lied only three times…” This hadith had
been mentioned previously in surat Al Anbiya (21/62-63 second heading). This is
evidence that he really had not been sick yet he had used ta’riz (indirect
meaning). Almighty Allah commands: “Truly thou wilt die (one day), and truly
they (too) will die (one day).” (Zumar 39/30) Therefore the meaning is as such:
I will become ill in the future, yet they had thought he was ill at that time.
This is as we mentioned before among the ta’riz (indirect) expressions.
(tafsir)
Tabari stated: The purpose of Ibrahim (as) telling them he is ill was because
he wanted to stay within the city and break the idols. Likewise his tribe was
in preparation of leaving the city for their festival. They wanted Ibrahim to
go with them. To convince his tribe who gaze at the stars and try to determine
luck Ibrahim (as) looked at the stars and said to them “I am ill I have caught
the plague”. Because his tribe feared the plague they distanced themselves from
him. Ibrahim (as) telling his tribe “I am ill” while he was not ill could be
explained in two ways: According to the first Ibrahim (as) stating this is one
of the three lies he had told in his life time. Regarding this matter
RasulAllah had stated: “Ibrahim (as) had lied three times. It had been narrated
by Abu Hurairah: Two of these were for the sake of Allah. These as (as stated
in the ayah) him saying “I am ill” and his statement of “Surely this big idol
must have broken
the idols”. Also Ibrahim (as) with his wife Sara had went to a tyrant leader.
To that tyrant they had said: “These is a man here and beside him the most
beautiful women among mankind” the tyrant sent a man to Ibrahim and had him ask
who the women is. Adara asked Ibrahim “who is this?” Ibrahim said: “my sister”.
Then he went to Sara and said to her: “O Sara there is no other mu’min on earth
but you and I. This man asked me who you were and I told him you are my sister.
Do not make me a liar.” Tabari had adopted this explanation. According to the
second explanation Ibrahim (as) had played a word game here and had meant that
each being who is sentenced death is going to be ill in the end and by this
meaning he had said he was ill. (tafsir)
Ibn kathir in his tafsir comments on the ayah 89 of surah as-Saffat: Qatadah
said, "The Arabs say of one who thinks deeply that he is looking at the
stars.'' What Qatadah meant is that he looked at the heavens thinking of a way
to distract his people. So he said, (Verily, I am sick) meaning, weak. Ibn
Jarir narrated here a Hadith from Abu Hurayrah (ra), stating that RasulAllah
said: (Ibrahim (peace and blessings be upon him) did not lie except in three
cases. Two were for the sake of Allah: (one is) when he said, (Verily, I am
sick); and (the second) when he said, (Nay, this one, the biggest) of them
(idols) did it) and (the third) when he said concerning (his wife) Sarah, "She
is my sister.'') This Hadith is recorded in the books of the Sahih and Sunan
with various chains of narrations. But this is not the kind of real lie for
which a person is to be condemned -- Allah forbid! One calls it a lie for lack
of a better word, because it is abstruse speech
used for a legitimate religious purpose, and it was said that what was meant
by the words, (Verily, I am sick) was, `I am sick at heart of your worshipping
idols instead of Allah.' Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, "The people of Ibrahim went
out to their festival and they wanted to make him go out too. So he lay down on
his back and said, (Verily, I am sick) and he started looking at the sky. When
they had gone out, he turned to their gods and broke them.'' (This was recorded
by Ibn Abi Hatim)
In his tafsir Samarkandi stated: “In reality they are both correct however a
lie according to zahir. The reason is because all humans in the world are
always in their death bed, in this sense they are always sick. Almighty Halik
had not given Ibrahim (as) a sickness but he had said this as a metaphor when
he had said ‘the chief must have done it- they believed this was true. However
he had said this in the metaphorical sense. If this is a metaphor it is true.
(Samarkandi, Tafsir, As Saffat 88)
Also the incident of Nagus can also be an example for this. Regarding Isa he
had told the truth but his tribe misunderstood him. “…the news of what the
Negus had said about Jesus spread among the people, and they were troubled and
came out against him asking for an explanation, and accusing him of having left
their religion. He thereupon sent to Ja'far and his companions and made ready
boats for them and told them to embark and be ready to set sail if necessary.
Then he took a parchment and wrote on it: “He testified that there is no god
but God and that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger and that Jesus the son
of Mary is His slave and His Messenger and His Spirit and His Word which He
cast unto Mary." Then he put it beneath his gown and went out to his people who
were assembled to meet him. And he said them: "Abyssinians have I not the best
claim to be your king?" They said that he had. “Then what think ye of my life
amongst you?" “It
hath been the best of lives," they answered. "Then what is it that troubleth
you?" he said. "Thou hast left our religion," they said, "and hast maintained
that Jesus is a slave." “Then what say ye of Jesus?” he asked. “We say that he
is the son of God," they answered. Then he put his hand on his breast, pointing
to where the parchment was hidden and testified to his belief in “this”, which
they took to refer to their words. So they were satisfied and went away, for
they were happy under his rule, and only wished to be reassured…” (Ibn Hisham,
Sirat)
This means that what the opponent understands is not always what is true. The
fundament is whether the word/statement is kufr in reality or not. If the
meaning of a word is kufr essentially and if it has no other meaning but to be
kufr then stating it is kufr regardless of anything else. For example like the
statement “in any disagreement the so and so (taghuti) court is the authority
to settle the disagreement”. If the taghuot had explained the meaning of the
word and if that meaning is kufr; in this case the document cannot be signed.
The reason is because that signature will show that he had accepted the
explanation. For this reason it is compulsory to mutilate the document; even if
the opponent is not aware of this; even if he does not understand that the
document has been mutilated; the signature will not signify the acceptance of
kufr hence the document signed is does not contain kufr and no other form of
acceptance has been shown to accept the
kufr. However if the document is mutilated and signed but later the taghout
separately asks you to do something kufr; even if the document has been
mutilated one can not perform an any act of acceptance of kufr like nodding his
head or winking his eyes.
***
the archive of the salaf and the discussion forum "Darultawhid"
www.darultawhid.com/en
