Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

Roman historian Tacitus in his work The Annals of Imperial Rome.

To suppress this rumour [that the massive fires of Rome had been deliberately set by men], Nero fabricated scapegoats - and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus.


Suetonius, in his The Twelve Caesars says:

Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Crestus [a Latin reference to Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city.[11]

Even, even if I agree that the two statements are accurate and reliable, they constitute to nothing that is outside the norm, these people are discribing the view of some Christians and what happend to Jesus, which does not mean that this was the only view. What is obvious is that it became the main view and thus it would naturally most likely cause attention.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

Roman historian Thallus (ca. 52 AD) as quoted by Julius Africanus concerning the darkness at the crucifixion, the Roman author and administrator Pliny the Younger's (ca. 112 AD) mention of the early Christians' worship of Christ, and historical references from the Roman Emperors Trajan and Hadrian.

Again this poses a similar stance to the above, but where is the quotation? And where are all the sources for these?

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

The Quran claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God.
Sura 6:34; 10:34

What is the context? though I think you have made a mistake, the verse you ment was 10:65 not 10:34

Whilst I leave you to ponder over the context, I will provide an instance which someone who does not want to read the context and has pre concieved ideas can use:

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word,

"Oh this means the message of Jesus the Gospel, see not everyone can accept it!"

But if one reads the context 'tis word' is speakin about something here in particular.

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

In 1064, Ibn-Khazem, FIRST charged that the Bible had been
corrupted and the Bible falsified. This charge was to defend
Islam against Christianity because Ibn-Khazem come upon
differences and contradiction between the Bible and the
Quran. Believing, by faith that the Quran was true, the Bible
must then be false. He said, "Since the Quran must be true 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 after
the time of Muhammad."
His argument was not based on any evidence or historical facts
but only on his personal faith, reasoning and desire to
safeguard the Quran.
This led him to teach that, "The Christians lost the revealed
Gospel except for a few traces which God has left intact as
argument against them.


Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been
corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New
Testament texts.

a. Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts
b. Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) " " " "
c. BUKHARI (810-870) " " " "
(he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam
quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text
of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)
d. Al-Mas'udi (956) " " " "
e. Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)" " "
f. AL-GHAZZALI (1111) " " " "
(probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-
Khazem but did not accept his teachings)
g. Ibn-Khaldun (1406) " " " " " "
(he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his
teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic
teachers.)
h. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College
"In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that
corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."
i. Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew
of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were
suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil;
but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it
was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because
those Scriptures were generally known and widely
circulated, having been handed down from generation to
generation."

We had a similar accusation, but where is you proof, what makes you seem like you are either misinformed or lying, and I choose to think the former, is that you claim Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said what he said, but if you read carefully, Ibn Abbas is reported to have said the total opposite of it! And that is recorded in Al Bukhari (which you put on the list even though he collected the narration of Ibn Abbas sayin the scripture is changed) Al Bukhari's book being the most reliable, and you do not even give any quotation/sources.

I leave you with Ibn Abbas' words:

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."

Sahih Bukhari, Book 48, Number 850

Regards

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

If unitarians don't accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the only saviour , they are not christians.

Yes the christian Church split into many denominations, but still all christians, catholics, orthodox, protestants agree that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, that He died on a cross for our sins and ressurected, and that God is triunity-God The Father, God The Son and Holy Spirit.

And dont tell me about jehova witnesses or unitarians because they are simply not christians, just like baha'i, druzes or sikhs are not muslims.

Well first you put for the condition, i.e. acceptance of Jesus as saviour and Son of God, then you said J.W. and Unitarians are not Christians, thus I assume you mean that they do not pass the condition, whilst in reality they claim they do.

Two things, 1. All christians believing in the same foundationals, what you are doing is taking a belief nd then saying anyone who does not believe it is not Christian, and then saying 'Look all christians believe these things' of course by your definition all christians do, because anyone who does not you claim is not Christian. But in reality, not all Christians believe Jesus is God, and you have no statement in the Bible that either clearly states he is, or that states that a person who does not believe in the Trinity is not Christian.

2. This faith, i.e. the common foundations shared by the majority of Christians maybe dominant now, but in the early days it may not have, in the early days there were different 'gospels' preached, just because they have dissapeared does not make them not true.


Another point, you stated And dont tell me about jehova witnesses or unitarians because they are simply not christians, just like baha'i, druzes or sikhs are not muslims.

That statement is false, you are claiming that the just like the Muslims claim Baha'i or others are not Muslims Christians claim that about J.Ws

Whilst in reality the Muslim can only claim someone is not Muslim with evidences from the scripture, so for example, if someone believes another messenger or prophet will come then this goes against the teachings of Islam so the person is not Muslim, it is clear cut. But what you as a Christian do is not this, you do not derive who is or who isnt from scripture, nowhere does it say 'If you do not belieeve in Jesus as God you are not Christian' nor is there a statement which produces the kind of evidence used by muslims to say Baha'is are non Muslim.

So please, do not liking things whilst in reality they are very different.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

But still no one explained me, how is it possible, if there are so many Bible versions why all christians- catholics, orthodox and protestans agree that Jesus Christ was Son of God who came to earth in human flesh, died on a cross for our sins and ressurected and that God is triunity- God The Father, God The Son,Holy Spirit.

Not all Christians agree to that, and you saying they are not Christian does not help unless you prove they are not from scripture. Furthermore, as I said before, the dominant faith now is all derived from a common foundation, i.e. the gospel Paul preached, but there were other 'gospels' just because they did not turn out dominant does not mean they are false.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

That list only showed many translations of the Holy Bible, not versions.
I am sure that in every "version" of the Bible from that list is written that- Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth in human flesh, died on a cross for our sins and ressurected.

You know lately i read that some muslim woman in USA made new translation of Quaran, where she removed and change all the verses that permitted wife beating, death penalty for apostasy, uneaquality between men and women.

And what, would you say now that there are two Quarans now? or two translations of Quaran?

The same thing is with all this list of so many Bible "versions"

Well the Qu'ran is well know, and it has reached a stage now where it can never be logically falsified, and even before the situation around it made this impossible, so any attempt to bring a 'new' version of the Qu'ran would be impossible.

But with the Bible, this is different since from the start things were not so clear, what has happend now, is that there is restriction of the different version able to be made, due to the fact that the sources are known, i.e. the Manuscritps, but even the Manuscripts differ, and as seen before, with new found manuscripts the bible is revisioned.

Your attempt to mean translations by version is not right, since translations are basically substituing words, neither adding a word nor taking away rather keepin the word in meaning and expression, whereas versions are the adding or taking of verses and this is what the Bible has undergone, let me give you 1 example, you read the NIV? Turn to 1 John 5:6-8 it gives you a footnote, stating a different reading and then stating that this reading is not found in any manuscripts before 16th, then go to a KJV and you will find the reading in the footnote which has been taken out by the Scholars of the NIV due to reasons just given above, you will find the verse there in the KJV.

That is not translation, but rather version.

I have yet to recieved any sort of reply so I am not sure if you have read my replies but I hope you have.

Regards,

Eesa.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but can I please point out that the New Testament is NOT the book being referred to in the Quran that was given to Jesus (the injeel).

The injeel is the direct word of God.
The New Testament is a historical record written by men. Christians themselves recognise this.

The NT is not just some tampered with version of the injeel. The NT is just a book that has no authority by Islamic standards in the first place.

It is possible parts of the injeel might have been quoted in the NT, but their is no reference to this as far as we know.

The main point to take home: They are two totally different books!

Therefore trying to prove that the Quran is wrong by showing that the NT was never changed is baseless because the Quran is not talking about the NT in the first place.

Please see this link for more information:
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=47516&ln=eng

format_quote Originally Posted by Balthasar21

Yes

El's Holy Qur'aan Chapter Two , Verses One - Four ( Revealed in the year 624 - 626 A.D. ) Verse 266, 632 Revealed In Medina .
Verse 1 . Adam - the Shadow Hour of Power ; Muhammad the first and the last newsbearers , of the seed of Adam . Verse 2 . That Book is a scriptures no doubt about that ; inside of it there is leading calmness to those who tremble . Verse 3 . These are they who are faithful to what is unseen , and they get up to perform salutation as worship ; and of the things We, ([ We Not He ] Eloheem , Anunnaqi ) provided for them , they share willingly . Verse 4 . These are they who are faithful to that was send down to you ( Muhammad ) , And what was sent down before your time ; ( that is the other scriptures and tablets ) , and in Al Akhir - The End , they will certainly be prosperous .

Beliving something was sent from God does not mean believing that it was sent to you. You mix those two things up, you start with the presumption that it is true and then you bring any verse to back it up.

The verses you quoted only indicate that Muslims believe in what was sent before Muhammad, peace be upon him, meaning we believe that God did sent the Torah and Injeel, but this is not the same as saying we believe we have to read them and that they apply to us, no, the second part is a subdivision, i.e. what does the belief in them entail.

I don't see why people can't read books of other faiths. it will only enhance their knowlege in that religion.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zulkiflim

Salaam,,

Hmm funny isn't it.

You say the other ar not chrisitans,,,what if they say the smae abot you?

Would you accept it?

And bahai, Sikh are not muslims,,,they worship other than Allah.So it is not the same,they have their own book..

.

Incorrect. We do worship Allah, Ram, Jehovah, God, as all names are used to reffer to the the one and same. Only lack of knowledge stands as a barrier between those that claim that God is not one. (And use names to separate)

^^Islam doesnt prohibit it I think. The difference is that reading the Qur'an holds more importance to us as Muslims because we are here striving to be the best Muslims and do our best to worship Allah Subhana wa ta'ala. So reading the Quran should come first before any other scripture.