When was the Bible corrupted?

[Umar001]

I think that the main question here is was Bible changed before or after Muhammad times.

I think if you look at manuscripts you will find changes before and after the time of Muhammad. The ones after being more notable probably due to the fact that the variant would have less time, generally, to spread.

After the times of muslim prophet Muhammad- in those times, Bibles were already in North Africa, Middle East, Minor Asia, parts of Europe. All were placed in churches and monasteries and protected by monks and priests. So the only persons who could change Bible then , would be christian monks and priests. But why would they try to destroy the fundaments of their faith?

Why would they? Let me give you a couple of examples,

The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a]

Mark 1:1 Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God.
​

Some would write alongside it to explain it, where once it read The beggining of the gospel about Jesus Christ someone felt the need to add, The Son of God. Instances like this are not rare. Anyhow, so yes, some of those people might feel 'moved' by the spirit to write or explain passages, othres might feel there is something wrong with the current passage for example,

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.

Matthew 24:36 Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.​

The above might have been a passage which indicates the lack of knowledge of Jesus, some thought it best left out. The list is ongoing.

Before the times of muslim prophet Muhammad- first of all as some people here proved there are verses in the Quaran saying that Torah and Injil were not corrupted.

Proved? Please show where anyone has proved that Islam teaches that the Torah or Injeel has not been corrupted.

And we also have the dead sea scroll -According to carbon dating, textual analysis, and handwriting analysis the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. At least one document has a carbon date range of 21 BC–61 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls

What do the dead sea scrolls contain? As for the dating, this is something I have heard alot about, again I don't know alot about it, still gotta read.

I recognize that Muslims and Christians have different views as to what constitutes the Bible. But as I don't speak Arabic, I have to use the English translations that are available to me. Now, I have used search engines for them looking for the words "bible" or "corrupted" in the Quran and Hadith, but have found no phrase where it says that "the Bible is corrupted".

Try, Book and Distorted or Changed.

So, given that Muslims make this claim, I am asking for when, whatever it is that Muslims refer to as the Bible was actually corrupted. If we find out that the Muslim and Christian definition of the term "Bible" is so different in examining that question that we are actually speaking of two different things, then at least we will have made progress in understanding each other.

Well the Bible you speak of, i.e. the one including the NT, the one of the Protestant. Has also undergone changes. Do you feel it has not?

As for what Muslims refer to as the Injeel, then that has undergone in my view changes if not totally lost.

(I'm sure someone will quickly supply it given that opening.)

Have you not read the 'Obligated to read...' thread?

Others, such as Malaikah, assert that the book which was given to Jesus is not the same which Christians claim is the Bible, and so Muslims need to prove nothing about the present Bible at all. Accept that this is my very question. If there was a book given to Jesus, but we do not have it now, when did we lose it? Did Jesus himself fail in his mission as a prophet, since he apparently never actually wrote any of his message down himself and only entrusted it orally to others? Did Jesus' companions fail because they did not restirct their message to just Jesus' words, but also told about what he did? Did later copyists take this message recorded by Jesus companions and rewrite it for their own purposes, creating stories that were never true?

Do you hold the view that by Book it must indicate writing contained between two covers? I'd find that hard to believe, the Qur'an was refered to as a book before its collection.

Jesus' mission was to spread his message, let us take for example Muhammad's last sermon,

Be my witness, O Allah, that I have conveyed Your message to Your people".​

Taken from, http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=435&section=indepth&subsection=Prophet Muhammad

So, although we know that the Qur'an was not in book form, Muhammad had conveyed the message. I don't think its a matter of Jesus did not make a book so he failed, or the companions of Jesus did not make a book so they failed.

Al Habeshi says that there is no actual answer to my question from Islamic sources (fair enough, thus it is a point of faith, as Abdul Fattah suggested), but that he personally thinks it may be been at its very inception when pen was first put to paper.

Just for the record, I mentioned, 'I cant give you..' meaning I do not know of such taechings, not that there is 'no actual answer'. There might be but I have not come across it, since I do not study this within the Islamic Realms.

but that he personally thinks it may be been at its very inception when pen was first put to paper.

For clarity, I am not saying that when the author of Matthew or Mark put pen to paper that was the first time, no,

If we speak outside the realms of Islam, then I personally think it would have been possibly curropted at the sources, through the time of its begging from pen to paper, and in the copies and also centuries later.

Meaning, at the sources that the authors used. The Oral Tradition itself, in my view could have harboured false stories which the authors were not aware were false.

Of course, this would imply that if any of the works were by those who actually knew any of Jesus' story first-hand that they intentionally created something that was contrary to the message of Jesus.

Well, that would be if we would know what they wrote, where as, I personally don't think we will know for certainty the unadulterated text of the 4 Gospels.

And if they were not by those people and that the original message had been preserved until this point of writing it down, that those that knew the true message either cared not enough to correct the errors or were somehow effectively silenced from speaking against them.

I don't think it would have been a matter of not caring enough.

I find these last ideas to be rather incredulous.

Care to give any reasons? Let me ask you a serious of questions,

1. Do some report a struggle between Paul and the Disciples at all?
2. Were the many Gospels at the time?
3. Were thre people labeled heretics at that time?
4. How many different sects were there?
5. How many of those sects have died out?
6. Did not Paul write first and the view that the Gospels we have now are somehow inspired by his school of though?
7. What did Paul mean when he spoke of 'other gospels' and 'my gospel'?
8. Who were the rivals Paul spoke of?
9. Was there a whole gentile non-gentile struggle going on?

Regards,

Eesa

 

[Umar001]

I might take some of the posts from here into the 'obligated to raed the bible' thread, specially thirdwatch's stuff, since I do want to ask about some things.

If anyone wants to have their posts moved please ask me in pm.

Eesa.

 

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam,

Interesting question,but in Islmaic belief we do not kow what chages took places in the Bible but that it is corrupt.

In the time of the Prophet,the Chrsitian then already worshipped 3 gos thus that is already evident of corruption.

And as for Prophet Jesus as,confirming the Torah,is simple,the Quran also confirm what is given unto the old prophets but not what is know as Bible today.
Another name for the Quran is the Criterion.

as Propeht Jesus as came to confirm the old teaching,to make right what was wrong,so is the Propeht Muhamamd saw sent to right the wrong in the olden book.

 

[Keltoi]

So if I have understood the Muslim responses accurately, there is no specific mention of what books of the Bible were corrupted or how? Not that I expected the Qu'ran to mention these things in detail, but I assumed there was general agreement within Muslim theology about which books were corrupted.

 

[back_to_faith]

So if I have understood the Muslim responses accurately, there is no specific mention of what books of the Bible were corrupted or how? Not that I expected the Qu'ran to mention these things in detail, but I assumed there was general agreement within Muslim theology about which books were corrupted.

It doesn't need a scientific discovery to find out which parts of the Bible corrupted according to the Quran...

Whatever disagree,violates the Quranic message...even that against common sense is without any reasonable doubt ,corruption....

the examples are many:

If the Quran negate the crucifiction,resurrection,and the New Testament affirms it ..then according to the Quran most of the last chapter
of the New Testament is false and based on a contradictory hearsy...

What is amazing,and a huge support for the Quranic claim regarding the false parts of the Bible ,is that the parts which contradict the Quranic narratation in the NT is the most problemetic parts ,with contradictions,false prophecies,historical problems etc....

I can highlight tens of example,showing why the Quranic narratives are more trusted than the Bible if they both mentions a specific claim,story etc.....
but that is not our topic here.

 

[don532]

So if I have understood the Muslim responses accurately, there is no specific mention of what books of the Bible were corrupted or how? Not that I expected the Qu'ran to mention these things in detail, but I assumed there was general agreement within Muslim theology about which books were corrupted.

....and when......

Were the Christians powerful enough to thwart God's purpose by changing the message, and destroying all evidence of the original injeel, given by God to the great prophet Jesus?

 

[Umar001]

So if I have understood the Muslim responses accurately, there is no specific mention of what books of the Bible were corrupted or how? Not that I expected the Qu'ran to mention these things in detail, but I assumed there was general agreement within Muslim theology about which books were corrupted.

:?

I have yet to see ever the Qu'ran speak of the Bible as the 66 Books, the Qur'an speaks of Kitab, and specifically speaks of the Injeel of Jesus and the Torah of Moses, if one wants to then take that to mean the Gospels according 4 people and the 5 books accredited to Moses then one can do so. But I would be hardpressed to find reference to what biblical books are changed on the note that the Qur'an mainly speaks of the two fore mentioned.

....and when......

Were the Christians powerful enough to thwart God's purpose by changing the message, and destroying all evidence of the original injeel, given by God to the great prophet Jesus?

Hmm, I wonder if Satan was powerful enough to kill God's 'son' Jesus and thwart God's purpose in his son.

Now, whats wrong with the above? The fact that God wanted his Son dead, i.e. the above is not displaying an accurate picture of what God's purpose was.

You assume that God was trying to preserve the message of Jesus and the Injeel of Jesus. You assume that this message was for the non Jewish people.

:heated:

 

[don532]

:?

I have yet to see ever the Qu'ran speak of the Bible as the 66 Books, the Qur'an speaks of Kitab, and specifically speaks of the Injeel of Jesus and the Torah of Moses, if one wants to then take that to mean the Gospels according 4 people and the 5 books accredited to Moses then one can do so. But I would be hardpressed to find reference to what biblical books are changed on the note that the Qur'an mainly speaks of the two fore mentioned.



Hmm, I wonder if Satan was powerful enough to kill God's 'son' Jesus and thwart God's purpose in his son.

Now, whats wrong with the above? The fact that God wanted his Son dead, i.e. the above is not displaying an accurate picture of what God's purpose was.

You assume that God was trying to preserve the message of Jesus and the Injeel of Jesus. You assume that this message was for the non Jewish people.

:heated:

I have tried to restate what I believe to be the muslim position.

The koran says the injeel was given to Jesus and is (3:3) guidance for the people.

What I have learned here, is that positon of islam is that the injeel is now corrupted by Christians. Correct? Or is the muslim position the injeel of Jesus and the new testament two completely different things?

What did the original injeel contain? Did the Christians make it disappear?

Perhaps you are saying God's purpose was the original injeel was intended to go away?

 

[back_to_faith]

....and when......

Were the Christians powerful enough to thwart God's purpose by changing the message, and destroying all evidence of the original injeel, given by God to the great prophet Jesus?

Greetings, Don

How are you doin?long time don't see your posts here....

hope you are fine.

well,

Humans, including Christians have free will?
yes?

If so then they could change,violate anything.

 

[Umar001]

I have tried to restate what I believe to be the muslim position.

The koran says the injeel was given to Jesus and is (3:3) guidance for the people.

What I have learned here, is that positon of islam is that the injeel is now corrupted by Christians. Correct? Or is the muslim position the injeel of Jesus and the new testament two completely different things?

Does anyone in the whole world hold that the Gospel according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, or the letters of Paul or anyone else, actually is an inspiration to Jesus from Almighty God, the total word of God?

Noone, not one person I have ever come across. So if noone holds that the above is the direct word of God given to Jesus, and then we know that Muslims believe the Injeel is the direct word of God given to Jesus, how can anyone say they are the same thing, so no, the NT is not the direct word of God given to Jesus.

What did the original injeel contain?

Guidance for the people it was meant to be for, i.e. the people Jesus was sent to.

Did the Christians make it disappear?

I don't know if the people who made it dissapear were Christians or not, would you consider someone who changes scripture, amongst other things, a Christian?

Perhaps you are saying God's purpose was the original injeel was intended to go away?

What we do know is that Jesus was sent for a time and people, and what we do know is that if God wanted to preserve Jesus' message He could do so.

 

[don532]

Greetings, Don

How are you doin?long time don't see your posts here....

hope you are fine.

well,

Humans, including Christians have free will?
yes?

If so then they could change,violate anything.

Greetings. I have been travelling some (China, India, US) on business. Time to get on the internet, but not taking the time to think and post.

 

[don532]

I definitely agree the NT is not the word for word revelation from God to Jesus. We believe it is God's message to the world and even with all the "problems" that are said to be in the Bible today there are arguments that can be had (in another thread) to either counter those things or show they do not change the message. But it is definitely not considered a word for word transcript from God like Muslims believe the Koran is.

Help me understand the rest. I think you are also saying Jesus was sent for the Jews(?), we don't know what the words of the Injeel of Jesus were, it's gone and we don't know how, why or when it disappeared. Basically correct?

So in the muslim view, the New Testament we have today is:
1. a badly corrupted version of the Injeel of Jesus, and
2. corrupted sometime before Muhammad's time.
Correct?

 

[back_to_faith]

So in the muslim view, the New Testament we have today is:
1. a badly corrupted version of the Injeel of Jesus, and
2. corrupted sometime before Muhammad's time.
Correct?

1-The nowadays NT is basically a biography which makes the focus on Jesus and not his teachings,depends basically on a hearsy rather than eyewitnesses testimonies,and that could be understood easily 'if neither of the apostles nor any other eyewitnesses wrote a word about Jesus 'we can never even found a second or third or fourth hand testimony'of any eyewitnesses .

Is the New Testament the Injeel that preached Jesus?

During the ministry of Jesus - long before the four Gospels that we read in The New Testament were written - his disciples following the footsteps of their beloved Teacher: "began going about among the villages, preaching the Gospel..." (Luke 9:6).
This was the 'Gospel of God' that Jesus had taught them.

The Gospel(Injeel) which Jesus taught the disciples,and urged them to preach
is nothing more than some rules,laws,spritual teachings were spoken by Jesus just as Moses did and Mohamed peace be upon them all did too.


The late NT writings after Jesus departure have another agenda ,due to the obvious attempts by the writers as Paul,John etc to cancell the OT laws ,and mix the the teachings of Jesus with a pagan concepts to attract the heathen,pagan people to the modified (Jesus-christianity) which is obviously similar to what they believe.



The Quran gives us hints to the contents of the(original) Injeel:

Qur'an 5:46/47
We sent him the Injeel (the Gospel),
therein was Guidance and Light.


"When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said:
'Now I have come to you with wisdom,
in order to make clear to you some of the (points)
on which you dispute therefore fear Allah and obey me
For Allah is my God and your God
so worship you Him this is a straight way."


Quran

3:50 "'I (Jesus)have come to you, to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

[003:003]
and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment be tween right and wrong).

peace

 

[don532]

The Gospel(Injeel) which Jesus taught the disciples,and urged them to preach
is nothing more than some rules,laws,spritual teachings were spoken by Jesus just as Moses did and Mohamed peace be upon them all did too.

Thank you.

And the original injeel of Jesus is lost, correct? All we have, in the muslim view, is some hints as to the original contents that are contained in the verses of the koran quoted above.

Let me offer an apology to Grace Seeker for hijacking this thread. My curiosity got the best of me, I guess.

 

[thirdwatch512]

Why would they? Let me give you a couple of examples,

The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a]

Mark 1:1 Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God.

Some would write alongside it to explain it, where once it read The beggining of the gospel about Jesus Christ someone felt the need to add, The Son of God. Instances like this are not rare. Anyhow, so yes, some of those people might feel 'moved' by the spirit to write or explain passages, othres might feel there is something wrong with the current passage for example,

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.

Matthew 24:36 Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.
The above might have been a passage which indicates the lack of knowledge of Jesus, some thought it best left out. The list is ongoing.

Please show me some other verses that the original manuscritps did not say "Son of God" please.

And btw, as I look through the Bible I see "Son of God" mentioned in MANY other verses, and they do not have the footnote "Not all manuscripts say the Son of God." I am assuming that the "son of God" added to those two verses is probably to make it make more sense. I see "Son of God" mentioned in Matthew 9 times, and they do not have the footnote that says "Son of God not in original manuscripts."


[PIE]For many centuries the NT documents were seldom questioned: but by the beginning of this century 'higher critics' claimed to have demonstrated that the New Testament accounts were the result of a gradual process of adaptation over a period in excess of 100 years. However, more recent discoveries have caused scholarly opinion to revert to the view that these documents are indeed contemporary with the apostles. - [/PIE]

 

[Umar001]

Please show me some other verses that the original manuscritps did not say "Son of God" please.

That sir is outside my capabilities. I do not have access to the manuscripts. I quoted from the NIV Bible considering it to be held as a reliable source by most Christians, if it is not for you then, I will try find a source you trust.

And btw, as I look through the Bible I see "Son of God" mentioned in MANY other verses, and they do not have the footnote "Not all manuscripts say the Son of God." I am assuming that the "son of God" added to those two verses is probably to make it make more sense.

So would you advocate changing the scripture to have it 'make more sense'?

I see "Son of God" mentioned in Matthew 9 times, and they do not have the footnote that says "Son of God not in original manuscripts."

Interesting you should bring Matthew up, I don't know what Biblical Commentaries you look at, though, the famous confession, where Jesus askes his disciples, who do you say I am. The reply given in Mark, the elder gospel from what I heard, is a simple one, whilst the one given in matthew adds some words, that is the general outline, it seems to be.

I definitely agree the NT is not the word for word revelation from God to Jesus. We believe it is God's message to the world and even with all the "problems" that are said to be in the Bible today there are arguments that can be had (in another thread) to either counter those things or show they do not change the message. But it is definitely not considered a word for word transcript from God like Muslims believe the Koran is.

Cool

Help me understand the rest. I think you are also saying Jesus was sent for the Jews(?),

From what I know yes.

we don't know what the words of the Injeel of Jesus were,

Nope, not word for word.

it's gone and we don't know how,

I have not studied this in depth in Islam so I can only say that I do not know how according to my limited knowledge of Islam.

why or when it disappeared.

I have yet to see such details, the main point is there though. Let me give an example, if I am not mistaken Paul said, without the cross faith is in vain, to that effect, and Islam comes and says Jesus did not die, so to me the main point is there but not the details, if you get what I mean, the sufficient part is there.

So in the muslim view, the New Testament we have today is:
1. a badly corrupted version of the Injeel of Jesus,

Not neccesarily version. The Injeel is the words of God given to Jesus, the NT, contains 'biographical' writings of Jesus, so within it it is possible that there are corrupted parts of Jesus' message or uncorrupted parts.

From my understanding.

and
2. corrupted sometime before Muhammad's time.
Correct?

Well, I havent seen the writings of the book of Jesus being corrupt in prophecy form, yes, I think it is speaking of before Muhammads time.

 

[Redeemed]

Jesus was never given a book. Christins have never claimed Jeses was given a book.

The Muslim presumption is wrong to begin with.

-

As I learn about Islam and read the Bible, I am beginning to understand why Muslims reject the idea of Jesus rising from the dead and being the son of God. For example, after certain disciples visited the sepulcher. Jesus was talking with them asking why they were so said. They didn’t think it was Jesus talking to them, because they saw him die. The disciples responded you must be a stranger in town if you don’t know what has just happened around here. Jesus said, “Oh fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory?” Jesus himself stood in the middle of them and said “Peace be unto you” but the disciple doubted and were even fearful it was him; in fact, they thought they were seeing a spirit of some sought. Jesus said, “Why are you troubled…? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: touch me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as I have” Yet his disciples were still not convinced. Jesus had to confirm his actual presents again by asking them for a piece of meat and he ate a piece of fish to show he was flesh and blood. Then he opened their eyes and said; “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead… and repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations starting with Jerusalem and you are witnesses of these things.” If Jesus’ disciples doubted it was him who rose from the dead when the prove was in front of their eyes, how can even us Christians believe without having seen much less our Muslim brothers of humanity and especially an atheist? Jesus, said to Thomas: “You believe because you see, but blessed are those who believe and have not seen.” After Jesus told them they were witnesses he said, “…I send the promise of my Father upon you…“ How can I expect anyone to see that Jesus is the Christ? Unless God reveals it to them, they will never see; so, I will not judge a Muslim or an atheist.

 

[back_to_faith]

Thank you.

And the original injeel of Jesus is lost, correct? All we have, in the muslim view, is some hints as to the original contents that are contained in the verses of the koran quoted above.

.

And the original injeel of Jesus is lost, correct? yes and No !!

If you mean (the original injeel )a written work by the hands of Jesus(peace be upon him) or his disciples,there is no Quranic claim of such thing...and If we understand the words of the Quran regarding the Injeel as a written work ,it would be a stuff contained in the so called (New Testament apocrypha )or non canonical books ,which mentions nothing about Trinity,crucifiction etc ,and which the church refused to accept it as inspired ,without any reasonable criterion !!!!

Examples:

Infancy Gospel.

Gospel of Barnabas




the original injeel of Jesus is not something which makes muslims regret ever reading,because it had the basics which has the Torah and also the Quran:


1-The call of true monotheism

The Qur’an tells us that Jesus came to teach the same basic message which was taught by previous prophets from God—that we must shun every false god and worship only the one true God. Jesus taught that he is the servant and messenger of that one true God, the God of Abraham.

Holy Quran 5:72

Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary." But the Messiah jesus said: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him

exactly in accordance with the following:


Mark 10:18
Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone

John 17:3
3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.


John 20:17
"Jesus saith unto her, ...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."



2-the urge for keeping the commandments of God:

Matthew 5:17-20
Do not think that I(Jesus) have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”



that is the true Injeel of Jesus'if we find other NT contents that contradict the previous 2 basic principles'could be understood if we understand the hearsy source which the writers depended on and the agenda they had in their mind...eg(inventing verses call for cancelling the Law) etc..


that is why Ingersoll wrote:

"The careful reader of the NT will find three Christs described:--One who wished to preserve Judaism--one who wished to reform it, and one who built a system of his own." "What Must I Do To Be Saved," Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
, p. 443


"There are some of his sayings which show him to have been a devout Jew, others that he wished to destroy Judaism, others showing that he held all people except the Jews in contempt and that the wished to save no others, others showing that he wished to convert the world, still others showing that he was forgiving, self-denying and loving, others that he was revengeful and malicious, others, that he was ascetic, holding all human ties in utter contempt." "The Foundations of Faith," in Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 270



No wonder we find such contradictions,if we find ample proofs of corrupting,altering the contents of the NT.

The Jesus of Mark denies to being good compared to God.

Mark 10:18
Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone


that is for sure didn't satisfy the writer of John and his own concept about Jesus so let his Jesus claims to be good

John:10: 14

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me.

 

[don532]

How about a simple, straight answer. What is the injeel referred to in the koran?

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace

No, because by that standard I can go to some of the many English interpretations of the Qur'an, find a few that disagree with each other, declare one of them false, and suddenly we have a corrupted Qur'an

i did not read the whole thread .

First of all : Translation is not Quran . The revealation came in to Arabic language --- that was written /copied / memorised by Muslims from the beginning.

But , Christians did not do any of these ( or did they ? ) to keep the original srcipture error free.
So , in the past some people tried to be benifitted by changing the laws.


One example came in to mind now. Once a Jew was caught for adutlery . Most probably s/he was rich .so some wanted to save the criminal .


When Prophet Muhammed (p) asked what is the punishment regarding Torah , a Jew started reciting from Torah but hide the specific verse that prescribed death penalty. Then a new Muslim ( ex Jew ) informed Prophet what the Jew was trying to hide.

This is only one example of how some people tried hard to change the law.