@freeuk.com> wrote in message <news:firstname.lastname@example.org
> Views of Islam - 17. The Bible in the Quran
> The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of God and demands
> faith in it. The following verses are quoted to prove this:-
> 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94;
> 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11
None of these verses talk about the Bible, they don't even mention the
> This, they say, proves that :-
> (a) These texts presuppose the availability of the true revelation of God to
> the people of Muhammad's day. 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71
None of these verses presuppose any such thing.
> (b) A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the revelations of God.
> 2:136; 4:136; 29:46
Yes we do, we are however not oblisged to believe in man made
insertations and interpolations.
> (c) The Quran makes no distinction between God's revelations 2:136
> (d) The Quran claims that no one can change the Word of God. 6:34; 10:34
But anyone can take a pen and paper and write on any scripture,
whether it be the Quran, the Torah or whatever scripture. One needs
to look at the efforts made by the followers of these scriptures to
protect them from tampering. As for the Bible, it is the Biblical
scholars themselves who admit changes additions and deletions were
made to its next. They aren't mad Muslims.
> (e) Many Muslim scholars have accepted the text of the Gospels. This
> includes al-Tabari, al-Ghakhiz, Bukhari, al-Masudi, Ali Husain Bin Sina,
> al-Ghazzali, Ibn-Khaldun, Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan, Fakhruddin Razi and so on.
Tabari didn't accept the text of the Jewish Christians scriptures to
be authentic. read his commentry on 5:48 where he states that the
Quran is muhaymin over the previsous scriptures, which means whatever
agrees with the Quran is accepted and that which disagrees with the
Quran is rejected. This OBVIOUSLY means the previous scriptures are
corrupted. read also his commentry on 2:79
"The great commentator At-Tabari (d 923) explains that this verse
[2:79] refers to the description of Muhammad (na't Muhammad) that was
included in the original divine version of the Torah, but that Jews
had "removed from its place." He also adds a Hadith saying by 'Uthman
stating that Jews ADDED TO THE TORAH WHAT THEY LIKED AND DELETED FROM
IT WHAT THEY HATED, for example Muhammad's name. Thus, they brought
God's anger upon theselves, and He recalled or took back (rafa'a) to
heaven parts of the Torah."
[Hava Lazarus-Yafeh. "Intertwined Worlds. Medieval Islam and Bible
Criticism." pgs. 20 - 21 Princeton University Press. 1992 ISBN.
Did Imam Ghazalli accept the previous scriptures as authentic and
untampered? Well as usuall another lie by the missionaries, for which
they do not cite any proof and evidence. A simple search on the
internet yealded the following statements by Imam Ghazali. Imam
Ghazali believes Islam abrogates all previous religions:
"10) THE PROOF OF THE MESSENGERHOOD OF THE SEAL OF THE PROPHETS
The tenth principle: Is that Allah - the Exalted - has sent Prophet
Muhammad - the praise and peace be upon him - as the seal of the
prophets and as an abrogator of all previous Religions before him; the
religions of the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians (a
[http://www.mosque.com/faith.html "The Foundations of the Islamic
" by Al Ghazali (died 505/1111) Foreword by Professor Hasan El Fatih
Dean of Umm Durman Islamic University Dean of The InterActive islamic
Imam Ghazali also states:
"Allah sent the unlettered, of Quraish, Prophet Muhammad - praise and
peace be upon him - with His Message for Arabs and non-Arabs alike, to
the jinn and humanity. Therefore Allah superseded other religions by
the Religion of Prophet Muhammad - praise and peace be upon him -
except that which He confirmed amongst them.
He favored Prophet Muhammad over all other prophets and made him the
master of mankind, and declared incomplete any profession of faith
which attests to Oneness, which is " There is no god except Allah, "
unless it is followed by the witness to the Messenger, which is your
saying, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." He obligated all nations
to believe in everything he informed of the affairs of here and the
Allah will not accept the belief of any one (worshipper) until he
believes in that which the Prophet informed of the affairs that occur
after death, the first of which is the question of the angels Munkar
and Nakeer. These are two awesome and terrifying beings who will make
the deceased sit up in the grave, both soul and body; they will ask
him about the Oneness of Allah and about the Message, asking, "Who is
your Lord, and what is your Religion, and who is your prophet?" They
are also known as the two examiners of the grave and their questions
are considered as the first trial after death."
[http://www.masud.co.uk "The Foundations of the Islamic Belief" by Al
Ghazali (died 505/1111)vi. Speech (B) The meaning of the second
phrase of witnessing which is the witnessing for the messengers and
their message. ]
The above shows the abrogation of the previous religions, and
*obviously* their books by the Quran. Now to the corruption of the
Imam Ghazali states:
"And that the Koran, the original Torah, the original Gospel of Jesus,
and the original Psalms are His Books sent down upon His Messengers,
peace be upon them."
[http://www.masud.co.uk The Foundations of the Islamic Belief by Al
Ghazali (died 505/1111)vi. Speech ]
If Imam Ghazali, as misisonaries allege, believes and "honours" the
textual integrity of the "Bible", then what is the point in using such
a terminology as: "ORIGINAL Torah" and "ORIGNAL Gospel" and the
"ORIGINAL Psalms"? Why would Imam Ghaxali use such a terminology had
he believed that the previous scriptures were textually reliable,
prestine, authentic and untampered? Clearly, the above statement by
Imam Ghazali shows other wise, that he also believes that the previous
scriptures have been tampered and corrupted and that the ORIGINAL
Torah, ORIGINAL Injeel and the ORIGINAL Psalms are Allah's Books,
which Allah revealed to His Messengers. This is just plain and simple
commonsense, which missionaries fail to use.
I also came accross the following by Imam Ghazali which has been
translated into English and is available online:
"Allah, the Highest, revealed to Jesus in the original* Scriptures:
Say to the Israelites: 'Whosoever fasts for My Pleasure I will make
his body sound and his reward great.'"
* Allah confirms that the Scriptures of the Bible have been tampered
with for material gain. "
[http://www.svmmvmbonvm.org/rarejesus.htm "The Rare Sayings of Jesus"
Translated from Aramaic into Arabic by al-Ghazali (died 505/1111)
Translated from Arabic into English by Shaykh Ahmad Darwish Link>The
Mosque of the Internet http://www.mosque.com/ This book was written in
Arabic by Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, or Algazel as he was known to
medieval Europe (died 505/1111). ]
More interesting quotes from the same source:
"In the original, unaltered, Bible it was written: 'Son of Adam, I
created you and sustained you but you worshipped someone other than
Me. Son of Adam, I invite you and you run away from Me. I remember
you, but you forget Me. Son of Adam, do you return and sleep wherever
"It is written in the original, unaltered Bible: 'As you decline in
morality you will be charged
and with the scale with which you measure your measure will be
"It is written in the original, unaltered Bible: 'Do not seek the
knowledge of that which you do not know until you practice that which
So *obviously*, after reading the above, no person who knows basic
most elementry English would dare say that Imam Ghazali accepted the
Jewish and Christian scriptures as 100% authentic, preserved, genuine
and prestine. According to Imam Ghazali, Muslims (him including!) only
believe and accept the *****ORIGINAL***** Tawrah, *****ORIGINAL*****
Injeel and the *****ORIGINAL***** Zaboor revealed to the Prophets and
Mesengers of Allah and **not** whatever the Jews and Christians claim
is from God. This *obviously* means that according to Imam Ghazali,
what the Jews and the Christians have is **not** the original
revelation revealed by Allah Al-Mighty. Imam Ghazali believes that
the previous scriptures were tampered and altered, this is *obvious*
and *commonsense* if one cares to read the above statements ie: "In
the ***original***, ***unaltered***, Bible it was written:..."
In conclusion, Imam Ghazalli believed that all previous scriptures
have been abrogated and that they, the previous scriptures are corrupt
and tampered. This is absolutely crystal clear from the above
Now to Imam Bukhari, the missionaries use a footnote in his hadeeth in
support of their claim, this is what Dr Haddad forwarded me some time
Ibn Hajar [Shafi`i] in Fath al-Bari said in commentary on the above:
"I did not find it authentically reported from Ibn `Abbas [from whom
al-Bukhari is citing the above], and we have a report from Ibn `Abbas
this in which he says: "They corrupt [yuharrifûn] means: they suppress
Al-`Ayni [Hanafi] in his commentary on Sahih al-Buhkari titled `Umdat
al-Qari (11:627) says: "Abu `Ubayda sai"d: yuharrifûn... means they
Majaz al-Qur'an by Abu `Ubayda al-Taymi (d. 210): "Yuharrifûn:
yuqallibûn wa yughayyirûn i.e. they shuffle and change." for verse
The following is the saying of Ibn Abbas (RTA) recorded is Sahih
Narrated Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utba:
"Ibn Abbas said, "O Muslims? How do you ask the people of the
Scriptures, though your Book (i.e. the Quran) which was revealed to
His Prophet is the most recent information from Allah and you recite
it, the Book that has not been distorted? Allah has revealed to you
that the people of the scriptures have changed with their own hands
what was revealed to them and they have said (as regards their changed
Scriptures): This is from Allah, in order to get some worldly benefit
thereby." Ibn Abbas added: "Isn't the knowledge revealed to you
sufficient to prevent you from asking them? By Allah I have never seen
any one of them asking (Muslims) about what has been revealed to you."
[Volume 3, Book 48, Number 850]
What about Razi? Razi leaves the door very open and does not state
that the previous scriptures scriptures were not corrupted. Rather he
is open to the idea that they were corrupted, his only statement is
that the Quran does not state exactly **WHAT** was corrupted in the
previous scriptures, but he does admit that the Quran says that the
previous scriptures have been corrupted. This is what I came accross:
"Alteration [Tahrif] must refer either to the actual words or to their
meanings ... Unbroken transmission [tawatur], however, prevents
alteration of the actual words. Thus those who altered were the
seventy men at the time of Moses, they would have altered nothing
relating to Muhammed, but only injunctions and prohibitations. If, on
the other hand, they lived at the time of Muhammed, it is more
probable that what is intended by altering are things relating to
Muhammed. The literal sense of the Quran does not indicate what they
actually altered" (Razi III pp. 134-135)"
[pg.121 "The Quran and its interpreters]
How is Sir Syed Ahmed Khan an authority on the text of the Bible? Who
gives a monkey what he has to say about the Bible when we have the
BIBLICAL SCHOLARS saying the OPPOSITE of his statement? The same goes
for Ibn Khaldun and others, they aren't any authority on this topic,
now I do not know if Ibn khaldun and others did believe that the
Jewish and Christian scriptures are fully intact, you can understand
by scepticism at the missionary claim when I know for sure they have
put lies into the mouth of others, but still, even if Ibn Khaldun and
others did believe what the missionaries say, then that makes no
difference at all. No problemo. Ibn khaldun and co. were WRONG and
we know that for sure as a result of BBLICAL STUDIES by BIBLICAL
SCHOLARS. The rest of the chaps in the list I really don't know, but
again, MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, WE KNOW TODAY THEY WERE SO SO AND SO VERY
WRONG (thats just assuming they said that which is being put into
I am surprised why you didn't include in this small list the names of
Ibn taimiyah and al-Bedawi because missionaries asuch as shamoun claim
these 2 accepted the Jewish/Christian scriptures as authentic, yet I
know for sure this is a lie! If it is a list which the Christian
missionaries require, then I have the following to offer. These are
those who believe the previous scriptures have been corrupted [these
are only *some* of our scholars of past and contemporary times, who
have all said that the Jewish Christian scriptures are corrupted, if I
were to try and merely name *all* the *names* of our scholars, writers
and speakers, then that would fill pages! Therefore here are only
*some* of the names, infact I will name some Biblical scholars as
Ibn Abbas (RTA), Uthman, Al-Suddi (RTA), Ubaidullah (RTA), Ibn Jarir
(RTA), Ikramah (RTA), Qatadah (RTA), Ali bin Abi Talhah, Said bin
Jubayr, Muhammad bin Kab, Atiyyah, Al-Hassan, Ata Al-Khurasani,
Mujahid, Ibn Zaid, Al-Rabi, Muhammad Ishaq, Tabari, Wahidi, Ibn Hatim,
Imam Ghazali, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, al-Bedawi, Jelalaine, Ibn Taimiyah,
Zamakhshari, Ibn Hazm, Al-Baqillani (d. 1013), Abd al-Djabbar (d.
1025), Al-Djuwayni (d. 1085), Al-Qarafi (d. 1285), Ibn Qayyim
al-Djawziyya (d. 1350), Maulana Rehmatullah of Kirana, Mawlana
Mohammed Abdul-Aleem Siddiqui, Dr. Wazir Khan, Maulana Abdul Hadi,
Maulana Ale-Hassan, Maulana Muhammad Ali Bichravi, Dr. Muhammed
Hamidullah, Adnan Oktar (pen name: Harun Yahya), Sheikh Ahmed Deedat,
Dr. Jamal Badawi, Dr. Zakir Naik, Dr. Jafar Sheik Idris, Dr Muhammad
Ali Alkhuli, Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, Dr. Khalifa Abdul Hakim, Dr.Nasir ibn
'Abdul-Karim al-'Aql, James Abdul Rahim Gaudet, Rabia Mills, Syed
Mumtaz Ali, Shaikh Muhammad as-Saleh Al-'Uthaimin, Shabbir Ally, Abu
Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, Mawdudi, Sheikh Abdurrahman Abdul-Khaaliq, Shaikh
M. S. Al-Munajjid, Soliman H. Al-But'he, Bruce M Metzger, Harry Y.
Gamble, G.A. Wells, D. Parker, Bart Ehram, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, James
Bentley, Kenneth W. Clark, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Sir Higgins,
Gibbon, Morton Scott Enslin, C. F. Evans, John Toland, Dr. W. Graham
Scroggie, Kenneth Cragg, J. B. Phillips, Raymond Brown, Paula
Fredriksen, Professor R.W.Rogerson, Maurice Casey, Kloppenborg, John
The above is not even the tip of the ice berg, many more hundereds of
names can be quoted, but the above will suffice for now! So if its
"names" missionaries want to mention, then surely we beat them very
very badly indeed!
Now tell me, do I believe the 7 odd guys in your list or the one in
the above list?
> (f) The Prophet (saw) himself accepted the bible as in the following
> "They said: Abul Qasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a
> woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the
> Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the
> Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him
> and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who
> revealed thee. He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a
> young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the
> tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No.
Where is the Bible mentioned in the above? Please show me where it is
being endorsed? I can't see it.
The following detailed answer is by a brother (Br Kavosh Soltan) in
another newsgroup (I think I took it from a shia newsgroup a long time
I just want to point our how the unbelievers and missionaries try
to imply a different meaning for the revelation than what was
intended. We have already seen (in my other posting) that Quran
tells us prior revelations are no longer authentic. In that light,
what does this Hadith say?
Although the Jewish scholars had rejected the prophethood of hazrat
Muhammad(SAAW), they did not want to submit to the ruling of their
own book (which they believed to be authentic). So, they saught
his judgment, thinking they could free themselves from having to
stone the man who had committed adultry.
The Prophet(SAAW) certainly knew that, although unauthentic in parts,
the punishment for adultry had not been changed in the Torah. So,
what did he do? He said he accepts the judgment held in their
book (for the case at hand). This was to expose the hypocrisy of
the Jewish scholars who tried to get out of his(SAAW) judgment.
Perhaps, the remainder of story could do us some good:
==== Hadith ====
Book 38, Number 4433:
Narrated Al-Bara' ibn Azib:
The people passed by the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) with a
Jew who was blackened with charcoal and who was being flogged.
He called them and said: Is this the prescribed punishment for a
They said: Yes. He then called on a learned man among them and asked
him: I adjure you by Allah Who revealed the Torah to Moses, do you
find this prescribed punishment for a fornicator in your divine Book?
He said: By Allah, no. If you had not adjured me about this, I should
not have informed you. We find stoning to be prescribed punishment for
a fornicator in our Divine Book. But it (fornication) became frequent
in our people of rank; so when we seized a person of rank, we left him
alone, and when we seized a weak person, we inflicted the prescribed
punishment on him. So we said: Come, let us agree on something which
may be enforced equally on people of higher and lower rank. So we
agreed to blacken the face of a criminal with charcoal, and flog him,
and we abandoned stoning.
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) then said: O Allah, I am the
first to give life to Thy command which they have killed. So he
commanded regarding him (the Jew) and he was stoned to death.
Allah Most High then sent down: "O Apostle, let not those who race one
another into unbelief, make thee grieve..." up to "They say: If you
given this, take it, but if not, beware!...." up to "And if any do
to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no
than) unbelievers," about Jews, up to "And if any do fail to judge by
(the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are no better than)
wrong-doers" about Jews: and revealed the verses up to "And if any
do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are
(no better than) those who rebel." About this he said: This whole
verse was revealed about the infidels.
==== Hadith ====
Incidently, we do not even know if the book today referred to as
"Torah" today is the same one that existed at the time of the holy
> So, they ask, why do Muslims believe that the Bible is corrupted?
Jee, I guess because IT IS and thats what BIBLICAL scholars say. Howz
> The above story, they say, proves that:-
> 1. That prophet Muhammad had an authentic copy of the Torah that was widely
> used in his times.
No, the above hadeeth does not say that the torah was totally
authentic and it does not even imply that it was widely circulated.
No such thing is mentioned in the above Hadeeth, we just have a wild
wild missionary imagination to deal with here.
>The Jews did not protest that Muhammad's copy was any
> different than their own.
Thats strange, the Jews brought forth a copy of their scripture, why
would they start saying oh its different from your copy etc? I mean
what you talking about?
> This copy was God's infallible word.
Well they can believe this. But we also know from Islamic sources
that they did not follow their own scripture when it clearly mentioned
the coming of Muhammed (PBUH), in other words these were hypocrites
who were not following that which they themselves accepted as God's
>There was no
> corruption in the Scriptures, Allah's inerrant Word.
The above hadeeth has nothign to do with corruption or preservation of
the scriptures. Anyone who says otherwise is dreaming.
> 2. The very fact that he called the Scripture for reference should be an
> example to every Muslim today.
Nonsense. Infact let me use a Christian missionary to explain my
point. After distorting tons of Quranic verses and other sources, Sam
Shamoun tells his readers in his article:
"Note: Our usage of the Quran does not imply our belief in its
authority nor its inspiration. We quote it solely for the sake of
convincing the Muslims of the Bible's authority and authenticity as a
fact confirmed by their religious text. "
Exactly, Sam is using the Quran merely as his evidence. SIMILARLY
Muhammed (PBUH) was using the Jewish scriptures as an evidence against
the Jews, not that each and every dot coma and jittle was accepted as
God's inerrant words! The stoning punishment within the Jewish
scripture was actually from God and was one of the bits that had
remained intact therein, but the Jews did not want to implement this
command of God even though they knew it was from God. So Prophet
Muhammed (PBUH) merely used their own scripture as evidence against
them! Thats all there is to it!
> 3. The very fact that the prophet said, "I believed in thee and in Him Who
> revealed thee" should be an exhortation to all of us to believe in all the
> Bible, following his example.
No, its not talking about the Bible, desptite the corruption of the
Jewish book, it still conained enough truth in it to lead a sincre
reader of it to Islam. The Jews admitted Muhammed (PBUH) was
mentioned in their own books in clear cut terms, so had they followed
their scripture they would have had no other choice but to accept
> It is asserted by Christian missionaries that Muslims ought, therefore, to
> accept the Christian scriptures and become Christians.
Christians ought first convince their own scholars and population
about the inerrancy of their scriptures and then worry about the
> They also tell us that there are contradictions between the teachings of the
> Quran and the Bible.
Which to a Muslim clearly means corruption of these scriptures.
> "And unto thee (Muhammad) have We revealed the Book in truth, verifying what
> was before it, and preserving it. Judge then between them by what Allah has
> revealed, and follow not their lusts (prejudices, fantasies), turning away
> >from what is given to thee of the truth. For each of you have We appointed a
> Law and a traced out Path. Had Allah pleased He would have made you one
> nation, but that He may try you by that which He has given you. Therefore,
> vie with one another in virtue. Unto Allah will you all return, and He will
> then inform you concerning that wherein ye dispute." 5:48
> It is this, which creates the disagreement between Islam and Christianity.
> The Quran and Bible appear to disagree in the minds of those who
> misinterpret both.
Let me quote some material I have pertaining to this verse, its
Allah commands the Muslims to rule by the Quran and says that the
Quran is MUHAYMIN over the previous scriptures, which means whatever
agrees with the Quran is accepted and whatever disagrees with the
Quran is rejected. This LOGICALLY means that not everything in the
scriptures are of the Jews and Christians is accurate and prestine
according to the Quran.
"And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Qur'ân)
in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Mohayminan
(trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures). So
judge between them by what Allâh has revealed, and follow not their
vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To
each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allâh
willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you
in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The
return of you (all) is to Allâh; then He will inform you about that in
which you used to differ." 5:48
"Unto you, O Prophet, We have vouchsafed this divine writ, setting
forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains
of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein. Judge,
then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with
what Allah has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant
views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee." [Al-Ma'idah 5:48,
MUHAYMIN: Arabic Lexicon: root verb "Haymana" saying Ameen/ control
Hans-Wehr Arabic dictionary informs us that Muhaymin means protector,
The phrase used in the verse 5:48 is 'muhaymin alayhi' which means
watcher/protecter over it, i.e., the previous Scripture.
Muhaymin: Guardian/ watcher/ protector/ dominant/ quality control/
rectifying/ wittness/ judge/ trustworthy/ entrusted etc.
The word muhaymin (as used in the above verse) in Arabic means
"Guardian/watcher/protector." In other words, it is the job of the
Quran to separate the wheat from the chaff in the earlier revelations.
The Quran confirms the earlier revelations in their original form. If
revelations were not corrupted then why is the Quran a watcher over
So that which agrees with the Quran, Muslims accept. And that which
contradicts the Quran we likewise reject. So even though the
scriptures of the Jews and Christians may contain truth in them, much
truth, the are nevertheless not devoid of errors and misinformation,
hence Allah has made the Quran MUHAYMIN over them, as a quality
controll, a wather over them.
Ibn Kathir explains the word "Muhaymin" in detail in his Tafsir [I
have just broken up the explanation into paragraphs]:
Ibn Kathir explains the meaning of this word in detail [commenting
upon the Quranic verse: "and Muhayminan over it." 5:48]:
"means entrusted over it, according to Sufyan Ath-Thawei who narrated
it from Abu Ishaq from At-Tamimi from Ibn Abbas. 
Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn Abbas said, "Muhaymin is, 'the
Trustworthy. Allah says that the Quran is trustworthy OVER EVERY
Divine Book that preceded it."  This was reported from Ikramah,
Said bin Jubayr, Mujahid, Muhammad bin Kab, Atiyyah, Al-Hassan,
Qatadah, Ata Al-Khurasani, As-Suddi and Ibn Zayd. 
Ibn Jarir said, "The Quran is trustworthy over the Books that preceded
it. Therefore, whatever in these previous Books CONFORMS TO THE QURAN
IS TRUE, and WHATEVER DISAGREES with the Quran IS FALSE."
Al-Walibi said that Ibn Abbas said that Muhayminan means, 'Witness.'
 Mujahid, Qatadah and As-Suddi said the same.
Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas said that Muhayminan means, 'dominant
over the previous Scriptures.' 
These meanings are SIMILAR, as the word Muhaymin INCLUDES THEM ALL.
Consequently, the Quran is trustworthy, a witness and dominant over
every scripture that preceded it. This Glorious Book, which Allah
revealed as the Last and Final Book, is the most encompassing,
glorious and perfect Book of all times. The Quran includes all the
good aspects of precious Scriptures and even more, which no previous
Scripture ever contained. This is why Allah made it trustworthy, a
witness and dominant over ALL Scriptures." -- all emphasis added
 At-Tabari 10:378
 At-Tabari 10:379
 At-Tabari 10:377-380
 At-Tabari 10:377
 At-Tabari 10:379
[Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Abridged. Vol. 3. pg. 196-197. Darussalam
Publishers and Distributors. 2000]
Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi explains:
">>And we have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the book in truth,
confirming the scripture that came before it, and a muhaymin over it>>
The word 'muhaymin' means that the Qur'aan is a wittness over the
previous scriptures, SO THAT ALL THAT CONFORMS WITH IT FROM THE
PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES IS ACCEPTED, AND ALL THAT CONTRADICTS IT IS
REJECTED. The Qur'aan, therefore, acts as a naasikh agent OVER THE
PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES, wich are MANSOOKH WHEN THEY CONFLICT WITH THE
This is one of the greatest blessings of the Qur'aan, for it shows
that it is the most complete Book (since nothing can abrogate the
Qur'aan after it), and that IT IS SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER SCRIPTURES
(since it abrogates all previous Books). It also demonstrates the
superiority of the ummah of the Prophet (SAW) over all other nations,
since the set of laws that have been revealed to it are perfect for
all and suitable for all nations, AT ALL TIMES. This is in CONTRAST TO
ALL OTHER LAWS, WHICH WERE MEANT FOR A SPECIFIC NATION, AT A SPECIFIC
TIME." ----emphsis added
529: cf. Tafseer Ibn Kathir on this verse.
[Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi. 1999. "An Introduction To The Sciences Of The
Qur'aan" Chapter 13 "Abrogation in the Qur'aan - an-Naasikh wa
al-Mansookh" pg. 246. Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution. ISBN 1
898649 32 4]
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan al-Barraak states:
"The Qur’aan is Muhaymin (i.e., it testifies to the truth that
is in the previous scriptures and exposes the falsehood that has been
added to them), and it abrogates the previous Books. The Tawraat
(Torah) and Injeel (Gospel) have been abrogated and have been changed
and altered. And Allaah knows best."
[http://www.islam-qa.com/QA/1|Basic_Tenets_of_Faith(Aqeedah)/Al-Eamaan(Belief)/al-Eeman_bi'l-Kutub_(Belie f_in_Divinely-revealed_Books)/If_a_Jew_or_Christian_believes_that_Allaah_is _One_but_does_not_rule_according_to_the_Qur’aa.03061999.4322.shtml]
"...it [Quran] is a Muhaymin [Muhaymin: that which testifies the truth
that is therein and falsifies the falsehood that is added therein]
over them. So there is no longer any revealed Book according to which
Allaah may be worshipped apart from the Qur’aan." [Sheikh
Muhammed S al-Munajjid of http://www.islam-qa.com]
Dr Jamal Badawi sums it all up nicely:
"What is the Muslim basis or criterion for accepting or not accepting
portions or passages from the Bible? The Qur’an itself provides
“And unto you have We revealed the Scripture with the truth,
confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watch over it ....
“ (the Qur’an 5:48)
This emphasizes two main aspects of the Qur’an:
a) The Qur’an confirms those teachings or passages of previous
scriptures which remained intact.
b) The Qur’an is the last, complete, authoritative and authentic
revelation. It is the final arbiter and the only criterion to correct
any inaccuracy or misinterpretation which might have occurred in the
transmission of scriptures. It helps in discovering human additions to
or interpolations of previous revelations, even as it reveals possible
deletions which might have taken place through the centuries prior to
its revelation (the Qur’an). Indeed one of the names of the
Qur’an is al-Furqan (the criterion which distinguishes between
right and wrong, truth and falsehood).
It follows therefore that a Muslim has no reason to reject the essence
of any passage in the Bible if such a passage is confirmed by the
Qur’an. For example, we read in the New Testament a reiteration
of one of the Ten Commandments:
“And Jesus answered him. The first of all commandments is hear,
0 Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord” (Mark 12:29)
A Muslim who reads this passage in the Qur’an can find no
objection to its essence. After all the Qur’an confirms:
“Say He is Allaah, the One and Only (God)” (The
If, however, a Muslim reads in the Bible (or other previous scriptures
for that matter) accusations of major moral sins levied against great
prophets or doctrines which are totally negated in the Qur’an,
the Muslim accepts only the Qur’anic version as the original
unadulterated truth, revealed by Allah (God)."
[Dr. Jamal Badawi "Muhammad in the Bible"
Lastly, one only needs to see what Biblical scholars have to say about
the Jewish/Christian scriptures. No Bible scholar would say that the
Bible is authentic and prestine because the Quran does not say it is
corrupted! A Muslim knows the previous scriptures are corrupted
because of the mamoth of evidence he/she has at hand to study, all
produced by top notch Biblical scholars and not some "mad" Muslim
mullahs. In short, one only needs to see what Biblical scholars have
to say in order to know how acurate and authentic Jewish/Christian
scriptures are. If the Quran dosen't say that the Jewish/Christian
scriptures are corrupted, then that dosen't mean either that they are
authentic. Note, the Quran also does not deny the corruption of the
previous scriptures, the Quran does not say that whatever the Jews and
the Christians have is totally accurate and authentic, and we today
know as a fact that the Jewish/Christian scriptures are not accurate
and not authentic based on the work, study and research carried out by
Biblical scholars themselves.
Assuming if the Quran does not say that the scriptures of the Jews and
Christians is corrupted, does that logically follow that the Jewish
and Christian writings are totally accurate and authentic, prestine,
because the Quran dosen't say they are tampered and corrupted? This
is a silly reasoning used by the missionaries. The Quran also does
not say that the Hindu scriptures are prestine revelation from Allah,
does that "logically" follow that THEY ARE authentic prestine
revelation from Allah? The Quran does not deny that the HIndu
scriptures are true and accurate and revealed by the Hindu gods, does
that mean Muslims should start following the Hindu scriptures? The
Quran does not mention that the Hindu godess Kali and the Hindu gods
Rama etc., are all false gods, does it then "logically" follow that
these are indeed true gods and Muslims should start worshipping them
because the Quran does not state that these are false gods?? The
Quran also does not say that the Book of Mormon is from Allah. Does
that "logically" follow that the Book of Mormon is indeed from Allah
because the Quran does not deny it is from Allah? The Quran does not
mention and talk about any Budhist scriptures. Does that "logically"
follow that the Budhist scriptures are indeed from Allah and are
authentic because the Quran does not deny they are from Allah and does
not deny their authenticity?? Anyone will see that this is simply a
ridiculous and silly reasoning and no sane indivisual would ever
accept this flawed reasoning. The missionaries are precisely using
this same flawed reasoning, they say the Quran does not say that the
previous scriptures are corrupted, so it follows that they must not be
corrupted. But then what about the scholarship at hand, Biblical
scholarship which states that the Christian Bible suffers massively
>from textual corruption and that verses were added and deleted from
the text by Christians in all the ages for various reasons, both
intentional and unintentional corruption? These are all simply well
known facts today which are not in dispute, and so a Muslim is looking
at BIBLICAL scholarship and hence knows that these scriptures of the
Christians are most certainly not prestine and authentic. And using
the missionary logic, since the Quran DOES NOT DENY that the previous
scriptures are corrupted, well then that *must* follow that they are
indeed corrupted and we can be sure they are corrupted because the
BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP itself says so. So: Quran does not deny that the
previous scriptures are corrupted, Biblical scholarship today says
that the Bible is corrupted, and so we LOGICALLY conclude that the
Jewish/Christian scriptures are corrupted.